





• ' r 



> 



■J N O 



.0"^ ^ ^ * ° / 









■"^A V^ 









^^^^ 



\.'^^vj^;- 



..^^' 
.^^ 



,<^ 








'K^ t- * -fix ' 
A'^ C » '^ ^ « ^O^ " 
























vO 






i^ -^^ 






■%c,V 



/h' 



^,<^' ^^ 










.0' o ^ ' ° * ^ 






,o' 















Mmw si % Wnk)i ^hiu 



TO ITS 



OIlIGi:t^A.L PURITY, 



9 ' - ^m 

AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE KUnOtt:;! WinOII BROUOItT AttOUT DE- uitN^ 
STifUCTfON 01 lAVF., LIBERTY AND PUOPERTY, AND TIIR 



BEMEBY THEB3EF0E 




^ BY SAMUEL JOUDAN, 

iDP ABBEVILLR DISTRICT, SOUTH CAROLINA. 



AUGUSTA, GEOBG lA 

1800. 









■»,r'?^0"''''.'ix ^ 






THE RESTOREK 



OF THE 



Mmw si % M\nU)i States 



TO ITS 



OEIGII^^^L PURITY, 



AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE ERRORS WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT DE- 
STRUCTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND THE 

(T^ RE M E B Y THEREFOR. 



BY SAMUEL JORDAN, 

OF ABBEVILLE DISTRICT, SOUTH CAROLINA. 




AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 

1866. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 



:o:- 



The object of this work is intended to correct the errors of 
this age in regard to their poHtical opinions, both South and 
North, and to arrest this cruel and unnatural war, and the de- 
struction of life, liberty and property of all engaged in it, 
North and South. I wish, if possible, to send every soldier, 
North and South, back to their firesides and families, their sweet- 
hearts and homes ; to enjoy that happiness which none of us 
did know, until we were deprived of it. Those who have 
wives and little children depending on them alone, for support 
and protection, must suffer most. Forced from them, and 
dragged into marshes and swamps to die with disease or sick- 
ness, or dragged in line of battle to be shot down by people 
who have no desire to hurt them, but who are forced by their 
officers to shoot them, or be shot by them. Each man is com- 
pelled to kill, or be killed, by some one. This is the deplorable 
condition in which the people, North and South, are placed by 
their political leadei'S. Now, if God will enable me, I will show 
to the people their true situation, and enable them to escape 
the awful destruction that lies before them, (for the worst has 
not come yet,) and restore them back under the government of 
their fathers in its purity, contained in the Constitution of the 
United States, which Lincoln and his party, and Davis and his 
party, have deserted, Tliis I will show by the princif)les they 
both have acted under, a principle called " separate State sove- 
reignty;" which principles, when examined, will be found to 
destroy every right and liberty secured to the people of the 
United States, by the provisions contained in the Constitution 
of the United States, and would, by this (so-called) " State sove- 
reignty," and the principles embodied and established by their 



conventions, show fully what the object of the Lmcoln party 
and the Davis party is. 

I do not draw my opinions from what the papers report, for 
they are only used as an instrument to deceive the people. But 
I draw my opinions from the principles adopted by our South- 
ern Conventions. First, in 1832, imder the plea of tariff op- 
pression ; second, in Cincinnati, under the plea of the great 
dangers of "Abolition majorities," pretending that their object 
was to protect the South against the Abolitionists; also, third, 
Conventions were called by those who called themselves Dem- 
ocrats, South and North, professing the same object; fourth, 
Convention by South Carolina to dissolve the Union, and sepa- 
rate themselves and all others in the State of South Carolina 
from their own government, whether the people are willing or 
not. They had deluded and deceived the people, making them 
believe that their object was to protect them against the Aboli- 
tionists of the North, and destroy the people's government and 
establish this (so-called) separate " State sovereignty," and called 
on the people to volunteer and organize themselves under mili- 
tary organizations, so as to be able to protect their homes, their 
firesides and families, against the abolition raiders of the North. 
But the people soon found they had to protect soinething else 
than their families and firesides. They did not know that, when 
those men, at the head of the army had physical numbers, they 
could force them into the army. Now, by what they call 
" Conscript law," they have dragged every man from his home, 
family and fireside, to support and defend State Rights Seces- 
sion ; and hence Ave are engaged in one of the most cruel and 
unnatural wars of ancient or modern times. Now, I think I 
can show that the principles contended for, both by Lincoln 
and his party, and Davis and his party, are precisely the same. 
If either of the two parties establishnhemselves under military 
power, the people will be under the grandest military power on 
the face of the globe, not excepting the African chief who kills 
. whom he pleases, and eats whom he pleases, takes from whom 
he pleases, and gives to whom he pleases. 

Davis and his party and Lincoln and his party both contend 
for State Rights sovereignty, the only difference being this : 



Lincoln's party contends that by acts of States Rights sove- 
reignty, each State has the right, by acts of legislature, and acts 
of majorities, to emancipate the African property; while 
Davis and his party claim, by acts of legislature, and of ma- 
jorities, the right to emancipate the life, liberty and all the 
property from the people, as the legislative bodies are under 
no obligation, only their own will, like any king, prince or 
potentate. But this I will show more fully, when I explain 
the true, genuine provisions provided by, and for the protec- 
tion and security of life, liberty and properti/ to each member of 
the Union. And, at the same time, I will show that, under 
the provisions of the (so-called) " States Rights sovereignty" 
doctrine, the people have no security for either life, liberty or 
property, and that it destroys every right to liberty or property 
and places them at the will and mercy of legislation and 
acts of majorities : whereas, the object of the framers of the Con- 
stitution was, to make and provide provisions in the Constitu- 
tions to protect the people in all their rights, against any 
acts of legislation, or acts of majorities, either by States or by 
Congress. This, I will attempt to show first ; then show the 
principles couched under the name of States Rights sovereignty. 



fflje ^^tstorer of tl}e Siiion. 



-:o:- 



There is one error existing among the people which I wish to 
correct at the commencement of my showing. It is thought by 
a great many that the word Constitution embraces only the third 
addition, or what really is an amendment to the two first en- 
gagements contained in the Declaration of Independence and 
the Articles of Confederation ; but the word Constitution em- 
braces all three of these documents, and it requires the pro- 
visions of all three to make a perfect Union. As proof of what 
I say, the provision called the Constitution, provides that all 
engagements entered into before the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion, should be as binding against the United States as imder 
the Confederation. This shows that the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence was still binding ; as also were the Articles of Con- 
federation, and that the word Constitution embraces all three 
of those agreements entered into. The Articles of Confedera- 
tion begin thus : The style of this Confederation shall be the 
" United States of America." As there has been some miscon- 
struction put on the word State^ when the people declared their 
independence against the government of England, it will, per- 
haps, be proper to make some explanation. What are now 
called States, were then called colonies, and governed by the 
laws of England. The word colony then, merely embraced a 
boundary of territory, which was set apart to certain Lords 
and Governors to colonize, and settle with Protestant citizens; 
with a promise on the part of the king to give a certain quan- 
tity of land, according to the nimiber of citizens. They settled 
in the boundaries set apart by the territory, called Colonies, but 
by us called States. These two words had merely reference 
to the boundary or territory. But when we united as one 
people, and formed one " National Union," the word State was 



used, in order to include all the people within the territorial 
boundaries of the States. The word State had no reference to 
any political power, other than that of the people; and all 
agents were created by the people. Nor had they any au- 
thority in creating and adopting the Constitution of the United 
States as a. standard of government until the people of every 
State gave their consent, by and through their delegates, sent 
by them to approve or disapprove. Neither were they bound, 
until they gave their consent, after they had examined the prin- 
ciples adopted by their delegates. But they all did consent, 
and bound themselves together as a national body, (as far as the 
United States boundaries were concerned,) under the following 
agreement : First, under the " Declaration of Independence." 
There we pledged oiir lives, our fortunes, and sacred honor to 
sustain each other in the rights of independence, which was a right 
to create the laws by which we were to be governed, instead 
of having them made by kings and monarchs. We succeeded 
in gaining our independence, and then renewed our engage- 
ments tinder the Articles of Confederation. Then we entered 
into a firm league of friendship with each other to support and 
defend each other against all attacks made against us, or any of 
us, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pre- 
tence whatever, which covered everything which could be 
thought of or named. We then went on further to describe 
the conditions of the Union. 

Art. 4th. " The better to secure and perpetuate mutual 
friendship and intercourse amongst the people of the different 
States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States 
(paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted,) shall 
be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in 
the several States ; and the people of each State shall have free 
ingress and egress, to and from any other State, and shall enjoy 
therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the 
same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants re- 
spectively ; provided, that such restrictions shall not extend so 
far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any 
State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant ' 
provided, also, that no imposition duties or restrictions shall be 



laid by any State on the property of the United States or either 
of them." This shows clearly that every member of the United 
States, North and South, had the right secured to him to move 
into any State or Territory in the United States, take his pro- 
perty with him, and that no imposition duties or restrictions 
should be passed by any State to prevent him. And as no 
State has any power to pass an ex pod facto law^ or law imparing 
obligations of contracts, this provision would prevent a State 
from passing a law to take any right from a citizen or impair 
the contract that secured those rights. This shows clearly that 
every citizen of the United States has the right to buy any 
property, move into any State with it, and a right to be pro- 
tected in it. For, both the Articles of the Confederation and 
the Constitution of the United States provides, that the citizens 
of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
ties of the citizens in the several States. So that, if a citizen 
in one State has the right to buy slave property, so has the citi- 
zens of every other State to buy slave property ; and no State 
has the right by acts of legislation or by acts of majorities, to 
prevent him. For the provision in the Constitution of the 
United States has prohibited all States from passing ex post facto 
laws, or laws imparing the obligation of contracts. The Con- 
stitution of the United States is all the obligation of contracts 
that exists among the people of the United States, and is es- 
tablished the supreme law of the land; and every one in office 
throughout the United States, is bound by oath or obligation 
to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
contrary. This shows that no State has the power to make a 
constitution to prevent the citizens of any State from moving 
his slave property, or any other property, nor prevent his buy- 
ing slave property. For, if they do, it will be passing an ex 
post f ado law, and imparing the obligations of contracts. There 
is another provision in the Constitution which provides that 
"No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws 
thereof, escaping into another State, shall, in consequence of any 
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or 
labor, but shall be delivered up, upon the claim of the party 
to whom such service or labor is due." Now, it will be seen, 



10 

that by this provision of the Constitution, no law nor regula- 
tion can be made by a State to discharge a servant or person 
bound to service to a citizen of another State. But if a servant 
or person bound to service escapes into another State, they are 
bound to deliver up such servant. Neither has a State any 
power to make any law or regulation to discharge a servant or 
person bound to service to a citizen of their own State. For 
the Constitution provides that the citizens shall be secure in their 
persons, papers, houses and effects ; and that security shall be 
inviolably preserved. If a State was to pass a law to dispossess 
a citizen of his slave property, or any other property, right or 
liberty, secured by any provision contained in the Constitution, 
it would be passing an ex post fact-o law, and a law imparing the 
obligation of contracts. Those are the great and important 
chech to prevent acts of legislation and acts of majorities from 
disj^ossessing themselves of all the rights, liberties and privi- 
leges secured to themselves by the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion ; making their own authority under the Constitution a wall 
which no act of legislation or act of majorities can pass over, 
and in this way make themselves secure in every right, liberty 
and privilege guaranteed in the provision of the Constitution. 
Now, as we have seen by the provisions of the Constitution, 
that it has secured the people against all acts of legislation and 
acts of majorities by those important checks, let us see how 
Congress stands in regard to their power, which the Constitu- 
tion of the United States provides. (For it seems that the se- 
curity of the African property has been better secured, or as 
well as any other.) The Constitution provides that, " The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution? 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or the people." This shows clearly that Congress 
has no power but what is exj^ressly named and set ajiart for 
them. A State has no power to do that which Congress has 
not the power to do ; therefore Congress and the States are 
prohibited from passing ex pod facto laws. This prohibits both 
legislatures and majorities from passing any law to deprive a 
citizen of any right already established. And as the Constitu- 
tion of the United States is the supreme law of the land, all 



11 

officers are bound by oath, or affirmation, to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding any 
constitution or law in any State to the contrary. This oath 
shows that it is not a union of State authorities, but a union of 
the people ; for no officer in any State is bound to support and 
defend the constitution of any other State, except his own ; but 
by his oath is bound to disregard the constitution of his own 
and every other State, unless it agrees with the Constitution of 
the United States. I may be asked where I place the right of 
sovereignty ? I place the right of sovereignty in the people. 
All kings and monarchs who claim the right of sovereignty, 
claim the right to make the laws — they being sovereign, the 
laws they make are sovereign. 

They also declare that they shall be the supreme law of the 
land, and by these laws they control all within the territorial 
jurisdiction. So we, the people, being sovereigns, created by 
our authority the Constitution of the United States, and de- 
clared that it should be the supreme law of the land ; and we, 
being sovereign, the laws Avhich we created were sovereign 
also. We all, throughout the United States, agreed to be gov- 
erned by these laws, and to govern all others by these laws. 
And in this way we are governed by a written agreement of 
principles, and not by acts of legislation and acts of majorities. 
This is a government created by the Constitution — a pure De- 
mocracij. It is not a majority governing a minority, for that 
would be one party governing another party, and the party 
governed would have no voice in making the laws by which 
they were to be governed. But the government created by 
the Constitution of the United States, (as I have shown,) draws 
up a written agreement by which all agree to be governed, 
and to govern all others. We have not agreed to be gov- 
erned by acts of legislation nor acts of majorities, but by 
the laws we have created ourselves. And in these laws we 
have prohibited all acts of legislation and acts of majorities, 
from taking the value of a pin from us either by Congress or 
by States. So that every citizen, who is a member of this 
Union, has the same right that any citizen of any other State 
has. If a citizen of any State has the right to buy African pro- 



12 

perty, so have the citizens of every other State the same right. 
For the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of 
Confederation, both provide that the citizens of each State shall 
be entitled to all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the 
citizens in the several States. 

Now, mind, the word is not " the citizens of the several States, 
but in the several States. So that whatever rights a citizen has 
in any State, the citizens of every other State have the same 
rights. The State has no power to prevent him, for it would 
be passing an ex post facto laio and a law imparing the obligation 
of contracts. There is no authority for one State restricting 
the people of any other State from buying African property, or 
any other property. Every citizen of the United States has the 
right to decide for himself what he will buy or not buy ; and no 
acts of legislation either of Congress or State has power to jirc- 
vent him. It would be no Union if it were otherwise ; for the 
word union means one, not tico ; but one united agreement, ex- 
tending to all the members of this Union. The Constitution 
of the United States gives no power to acts of majorities out- 
side of the Constitution. It has secured to the people the right 
to elect all officers by acts of majorities; but the officers elect- 
ed have no power outside of that written agreement of princi- 
ples. Those principles, established in the Constitution, rule and 
govern all officers and citizens, both of States and the United 
States. You will perhaps ask the question, is there not power in 
Congress, when the President vetoes the acts of Congress, and 
cannot Congress, by a majority of two-thirds, establish the act 
vetoed, as a law ? I say no ; unless it is in accordance with the 
provisions of the Constitution. This act of majorities only 
overrules the veto of the President. But, if this law, passed 
by two-thirds, ovevi'rule the veto of the President, the Constitu- 
tion has provided a cheek against acts of majorities by provid- 
ing that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to 
all cases of law and equity, arising under this Constitution, in 
all cases wherein the United States shall be a jjarty. Now, in 
this case, the United States is a party, and if any one objects to 
such a law, as being unconstitutional, they have the right to 
bring the case into that court, and pronounce such a law uncon- 



13 

stitutional, mill and void, and no law. You will say : does this 
make the Judges sovereigns ? I say no ; for the Judges are 
only agents of the people, and appointed by the people .as a 
check against illegal legislation. Legislators may err as well as 
others. He is a very wise man that never errs, and a very good 
man that never does Avrong. So it was necessary that a court 
should be appointed to decide on the acts of legislators. 

As there has been so much pains taken by the framers of the 
Constitution to prohibit and restrict them Avithin the bounds of 
the Constitution, and as the> object of all government is, and 
ought to he, to appoint courts and juries, to protect right against 
wrong, so the people appointed this court as a protector of their 
rights, liberties and privileges secured to themselves in the Con- 
stitution of the United States, against all acts of legislation and 
acts of majorities, passed by our agents, binding them at the 
same time by oath to suj^port and defend the Constitution of 
the United States. So they cannot be called sovereigns, but 
agents. They are not left to exercise their own will, but are 
bound by oath to decide according to the constitutionality of 
the case. This shows clearly that there are no sovereigns but 
the people, and the laws established by them in the Constitution 
of the United States, and such as will accord with them. 

I may be asked the question, does not the Constitution of the 
United States give power, to a majority of three-fourths to 
amend the Constitution? It does; but the word amend does 
not mean to destroy or make weaker, but to strengthen, and make 
stronger. 

All the provisions of the Constitution were created for the 
protection of the people in their rights. 

Any amendment that would protect them better and make 
them more secure in their rights would be in accordance with 
all the other provisions of the Constitution, and would be a 
constitutional amendment. But any law passed under the name 
of an amendment, which would destroy, or take away any right, 
liberty or privilege, already secured by the provisions of the 
Constitution of the United States, would be an ex post facto law ; 
and would be imparing the obligation of contracts, therefore, 
null and void ; and would be pronounced so by all wise, honest 



14 

and intelligent courts, if the case was properly argued before 
them. So this shows still that majorities have no power otit- 
side of the Constitution. Those provisions of the Constitiition 
of the United States show, beyond the doubt of contradiction, 
that no power is given to any officer or agent, acting in the 
United States, outside of the Constitution of the United States, 
and that this Union is to be pei'petual, and cannot be legally 
destroyed. The next question is — how are new States to be 
admitted into the Union ? The Constitution provides that new 
States may be admitted into the Union by Congress. This pro- 
vision of the Constitution must have reference to coming out 
of other governments into this Union, such as Texas, Louisiana, 
and Florida ; for all territories belonging to the United States 
are already in the Union. 

The Constitution of the United States provides that Con- 
gress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful 
rules and regiilations, respecting the territories and other public 
property belonging to the United States. Now, Congress has 
made regulations in regard to States being admitted into the 
Union, coming out of a territory — " That a certain number 
named, settling in a territory, shall be admitted by Congress as 
a State." All that a territory has to do, is to give Congress sat- 
isfactory proof that they have the number of citizens in that 
territory, required by law, and that gives them the right to be 
admitted. But Congress has no power to fix the terras by 
which they shall be admitted — except the numbers. The Con- 
stitution has fixed the terms upon which all States shall come 
into the Union. That is, every one in office throughout the 
United States shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, that they 
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. 
So that every State has to come into the Union under the same 
agreement as the rest. There is but one way for a State to 
come into this Union, and that is, to bind themselves to support 
and defend all the provisions of the Constitution of the United 
States, which has secured to every citizen, who is a member of 
the United States, a right to go into any State, and take with 
him his property. And all States are prohibited from making 
any law of impositions or duties on his property, and he is se- 



15 

cure in the right of carrying his property, to and from any 
State, and the right to buy and own any property he chooses ; 
and no State has the power to impair the contract which secures 
him in that right. For the Constitution provides '' that the citi- 
zens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
munities of the citizens in the several States." Not of but in 
the several States. So that whatever right a citizen has in any 
State, the citizens of every other State has the same. There is 
no such thing as a State having power by acts of majorities or by 
legislation^ or by forming a constittdion, to jirevent any citizen of 
the United States from buying what he pleases ; and he has a 
right to be protected in every State and Territory in the United 
States, and as far as the flag of the United States sails. Now, 
this is the kind of government created by the Constitution of 
the United States ; all men in oflice are bound to support and 
defend it throughout the United States.. 

Now, it will be seen how necessary it is for the constitution 
of every State to accord with the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, for every ofiicer of any and every 
State has to take an oath to sujiport and defend the constitution 
of his own State, as well as the Constitution of the United 
States. If the constitution of his own State is in opposition to 
the pro\dsions of the Constitution of the United States, he can- 
not support two opposites, and must therefore perjure himself. 
For the oath provided by the Constitution of the United States 
is, that every ofiicer throughout the United States should be 
bound by oath, or afiirmation, to support and defend the Consti- 
tution of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution or 
law in any State to the contrary. So that the oath every officer 
should take in regard to the constitution of their own State, 
should be to support and defend the constitution of their own 
State, so far as it accords with the Constitution of the United 
States ; and that they would support and defend the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution or 
law in any State to the contrary. This woiild be truly in ac- 
cordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United 
States, which contams all the provisions of the Union, and no 
Union exists outside of it. 



16 

There has been a great deal said about the reserved rights of a 
State. If we look and see what has been prohibited to the 
States, we can easily see what is reserved to a State. If a State 
has no power to pass an ex post facto law, imparing the obligation 
of contracts, she has no power to deprive any citizen of any 
right secured to him, either by'the Constitution of the State or 
the United States, nor impair the contract that secured that 
right. So the power reserved to a State is, that they have the 
power to make any law necessary to protect the citizens to the 
extent and boundary of their own State, (but no further,) in all 
the rights and liberties they have secured to themselves under 
the Constitution of the United States, or their owti State. But 
they have no power to deprive them of any right, not even to 
the value of a pin. All rights reserved to States are reserved 
to the people of the States, and not the Legislatures of the States. 
The right reserved to people of States, in part is, to elect their 
officers for the State, and also all the officers to go to Congress, 
which are the agents of the people of the States, their own Le- 
gislatures, and fix the term of time they shall hold their 
office, and appoint by themselves, and in their authority under 
the constitution, the manner in which they shall be appointed ; 
to transact all their domestic affairs of the State ; appoint ma- 
gistrates, sheriffs, constabl^, and all other necessary officers, 
and many other things not necessary to name. Those things 
are reserved to the States to manage for themselves. But 
every officer is bound, from the constable to the President of 
the United States, to support and defend the Constitution of 
the United States, which does contain every provision of the 
Union that does exist. 

The word Liberty is often used both by kings and monarchs, 
and it seems that its true meaning is not well understood, and 
is often badly applied. The true meaning of the word Liberty 
is, to have rights and privileges, and be well secured and pro- 
tected in the right of using them. This Constitution of the 
United States has given to the members of this Union more 
rights and liberties than any other government on earth, and, 
as I have shown, has permanently secured them by those pro- 
visions. I have sho^Ti that our risrhts and liberties are as 



17 

firmly secured as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which 
could not be altered or changed. For the Constitution pro- 
vides that no ex post facto law shall be passed. And as no ex post 
facto law can be passed, no right already secured can be taken 
from us by any made hereafter. And as no one has power to 
impair the contract that secured those contracts, and this Union- 
was to be perpetual, it secures them for ever . But, in one re- 
spect, our government far excels that of the Medes and Per- 
sians. We have provided that amendments may be made, so 
that, if time and experience should cause us to see that any de- 
fects existed in giving a permanent security to our rights, we 
have a right to amend and make ourselves as secure as the wis- 
dom of man could devise. 

But we acted with great caution in providing a way for 
amendments, and also fixed firm checks to prevent any acts 
under the name of amendments, from having any chance to de- 
prive us of our rights, already secured, as I have previously 
explained. Now those provisions of the Constitution show 
clearly that the framers of the Constitution had but one object 
in view, and that was, to protect the citizens in all their rights, 
liberties and privileges. There was but one way in which it 
could be done, and that was, by prohibiting and restricting all 
oificers and all legislative bodies from having any power to cre- 
ate laws, to deprive them of their rights, as they have done. 
There could be no freer trade to any people than is secured by 
the Constitution of the United States, for it provides that no 
duty or tax shall be laid on any article exported from any State, 
and that no article shall enter free in one port, and pay duty in 
another, and that the duties shall be uniform throughout the 
United States. It also provides " that no imposition duties or 
restrictions shall be laid by any State upon the property of 
the United States, or either of them." So that there cannot 
be any tax or duties laid on any articles exported from the 
United States to any foreign government. Neither can there 
be any tax or duty laid on any article exported from any State 
to any other State. This is as free a trade as can be made by 
any government. 

Now, this is the kind of government that has been thrown 



18 

away, and wished to be destroyed, both by the Secessionists and 
the Lincoln Abolitionists, and separate States Rights platforms, 
and forcing the people to fight to establish the security of the 
life," liberty and property of the people under the control of the 
legislative bodies. 

As there has been so much said about separate States Rights 
sovereignty, and the reserved rights of the States, perhaps it 
will be better to make some better " showing,^^ as to what is 
meant by those words, used both in the " Articles of Confede- 
ration" and in the Constitution of the United States. The Ar- 
ticles of Confederation provides : 

" Art. 2d. That each State retains its sovereignty, freedom 
and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right 
which is not by this Confederation delegated to the United 
States in Congress assembled." This shows clearly that the 
people, jointly throughout the United States, had delegated 
power to other agents to be transacted jointly for other pur- 
poses than the affairs of a separate State ; but for the purpose 
of transacting busmess in Avhich all were equally interested. 
But while retaining the sovereignty, freedom and independence, 
and evei-y power, jurisdiction and right, they excluded the ne- 
cessary power which was expressly delegated to their joint 
agents. Now let us see what were these sovereign rights wliich 
were retained to each State, for the word each, States who were 
members of the Union. Now, the right of each State, or the 
people of each State retained was, the right to elect the officers 
that were to transact their joint agency, and also to elect all 
the officers of their own State ; and also to provide a constitu- 
tion as a power of attorney by which to transact their business. 

When there is a written power of attorney given to an agent 
or agents, it is a settled principle, settled by all law, that when 
they have acted as far as the power of attorney authorizes, 
their power ceases. Now, the people have in their joint agree- 
ment delegated certain business for all their agents, who trans- 
act their joint agency, and have expressly named what each 
agent shall transact, what services Congress shall perform, what 
services the Judges of the Supreme Court shall render, what 
services each officer in all the departments of the government 



19 

shall attend to, and for what length of time shall hold their of- 
fices. So that, all their powers are delegated, and it is set 
apart what services each shall render, from the President to the 
constable. All are sworn to discharge the duties of the offices 
to which they are appointed, to the best of their ability, and 
that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States. 

All the officers who act under the General Government are 
not sworn to support or defend the constitution of any State , 
but every one is sworn to support and defend the Constitution 
of the United States. This shows clearly that all the Union 
that does exist is contained in the Constitution of the United 
States, and that it is a union of individuals, and not a union of 
State Legislatures, having the absolute control over the life, 
liberty and property of the people. And those provisions, 
both of the '' Articles of Confederation" and the Constitu- 
tion of the United States show clearly that the people have not 
surrendered either to their agents nor their State governments 
any part of their sovereignty, for the people of each State has 
retained the right to elect their own officers, accordmg to their 
population, to transact all their joint agencies. And as all the 
power they have to transact is delegated, it shows clearly that 
not one of these officers, from the President to the constable, 
has one particle of sovereignty invested in themselves. They 
are all confined by the provisions of the Constitution of the 
United States, to act within the bounds of the commission of 
the office for which they were elected, and they have no power 
to act further. This is the case with the legislators of Congress, 
for their pov>'ers are delegated, set apart and expressly named, 
and they have no power that is not expressly named. Neither 
have the legislators of the States any j^owers but what are ex- 
pressly named. 

All the powers they possess are named and delegated by the 
people of each State, and by the constitutions of their several 
States, and they have no power but what is expressly named by 
the constitution of their own State. Neither have the people 
of any State power to make a constitution or law to impair any 
contract that exists under their joint agreement between them- 
selves and the people of all the other States. Because, accord- 



20 

ing to the agreement that existed betv.ecn them, no State was 
to have power to impau- the obligation of contracts; and one 
of these contracts was, that the Unioii should be perpetual. - 
No State has power to make a law to extend its laws into 
any other State. No officer is bound to support and de- 
fend the laws of any State but his own. No officer trans- 
acting the joint agency of the United States is bound by 
any oath to support and defend the constitution of any 
State. This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that 
this Union was not a union of so^ ereign State Legislatures, 
neither is it a iinion of State authorities. . But if further 
proof is necessary to show that tlic Union, under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, was not a union of State authority^ 
but that the Union was of individuals, and not of State au- 
thority, let us define the word sovereignty, and see whether it 
will apply to the State Legislatures of either State, or the 
United States. It is true I have fully shoAvn that their powers 
"were all delegated, which would exclude all claim to sovereign- 
ty; for the word sovereignty will not apply to any one, only 
those who can act without being imder any obligation, only 
their own vnW. And as all legislators, acting under the author- 
ity of the constitution both of the State and the United States, 
are delegated, and have no power to act, nor remain in office 
longer than the time for which they were elected. 

Otherwise, then, it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt, 
that the word sovereignty c^avnoi apply to the Legislatures either 
of States or the LTnited States. But if not to them, let us see 
if the word sovereignty can- rightly be applied to the people 
under the Constitution of the United States. 

All sovereigns claim the right to create the laws to the ex- 
tent and boundaries of their territorial jurisdiction, Now, 
when the people gained their independence from the King of 
England, by their delegates, formed a joint agreement to sus- 
tain each other in the rights of independence, which they did, 
as I have clearly shown. They elected members to a conven- 
tion for the purpose of adopting certain principles as the stand- 
ard of government. They adopted the " Articles of Confede- 
ration," but as they did. not bind themselves to abide by such 
principles as they might adopt, they retained the right to decide 



21 

for themselves. So the principles they adopted were not bind- 
ing nntil the people elected another set of delegates with power 
and authority to ratify and adopt the principles contained in 
the " Articles of Confederation," as the standard of govern- 
ment. They all agreed to be governed by these principles, and 
to govern all others by them. And in those principles they 
agreed to require an oath from every one who should hold an 
otfice, that they would support and defend all the rights se- 
cured to themselves under that agreement. They provided 
that the Union should be perpetual. They also provided that 
amendments might be made, but that no ex pod facto laiv should 
be made, nor law imparing the obligation of contracts should 
be passed. Now, it Avill be seen, if examined into, that the 
people have never been bound by any other power but them- 
selves, and their own consent, and at all times retained the sove- 
reign right not to be bound by any other obligation than their 
own will. For, although they have provided in the " Articles 
of Confederation" that amendments may be made, and also in 
what is called the Constitution of the United States, which is 
only an amendment of the first, that amendments maj'' be made, 
and the word amendment must be in accordance with the first, 
or it would not be an amendment. The provisions both of the 
Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are adopted for 
the security and protection of the people against all attacks 
made against them on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, 
or any other pretence whatever. Now, whatever addition was 
made by the way of amendments that would make the people 
more secure in all these things, would be an amendment ; but 
any addition that would make the people less secure, under the 
name of an amendment, would be passing an ex post facto law, 
and a law imparing the obligation of contracts. Now, let us 
see what is provided to the delegating powers in the amend- 
ment called the Constitution of the United States. It provides 
that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- 
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, be reserved to the 
States respectively, or the people. Now, let us see what wa.s 
reserved to the States or the people. Mind, that portion of the 
Constitution was sjieaking of the delegating powers; tliat is, 
all powers not delegated, were undelegated, and if delegated at 



22 

all, must be delegated by three-fourths of the States, or the 
people; and that they had to be adopted by the people, and 
become part of the Constitution in the same manner, and in the 
same way that all the other parts of the Constitution were cre- 
ated. They were created by the consent of three-fourths of the 
people, before it could bocome a part of the Constitution. 
So, you see, the people had the right to. create the laws by 
which they should be bound ; and, in this way, have never parted 
with any part of their sovereignty. But as the word State has 
been wrongly applied by the Calhoun party, and the Abolition 
party, and, by false construction, applied or made to mean legis- 
lative bodies of each State, and that they were sovereign, and 
not the people. But let us see if the word State will apply 
to the legislatures in any manner, whatever. When the Kmg 
of England relinquished his claim in the United States, his ter- 
ritorial claims were called by the names — New York, Virginia, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, &c. Now, those 
names, and all the names attached to colonies, only represented 
the boundary of territory, which also included the people within 
the boundary of said territory — claimed by him as his subjects. 
So, when he acknowledged the independence of the people with- 
in the boundaries of these territories, he simply relinquished his 
claim on all these colonies by name, whereas if he had only ac- 
knowledged a part of the colonies, that part not acknowledged 
he could still claim. But he did acknowledge all that is now 
by us called States. Now, will any sane man pretend to say 
that the Avord South Carolina, means the Legislature of South 
Carolina ? Or will any one pretend to say that the word Geor- 
gia, means the Legislature of Georgia ? Is not the word State, 
put in the place of Colonij ? and did not the word Colony, re- 
present the territorial boundary of that territory. Now, when 
the word State is used, either in the " Articles of Confederation" 
or the Constitution of the United States, the true meaning is, 
the territory and boundaries which include the people. And 
the word State, is generally used to include the people within 
the boundaries of the State, without any reference to the legis- 
lature, whatever. When the word State is used, it always means 
the territory, or the people, and very often both ; but when we 



23 

define the word sovereignty, the legislators of a State have a 
very poor showing, as it regards being under no obligation 
but their own will. A man cannot be a member to act as legis- 
lator, unless the people elect him. He cannot take a seat in the 
house unless he takes an oath to support and defend the con- 
stitution of his own State, and* the Constitution of the United 
States. This shows clearly that both these departments of 
government belong to the people that elected them, for they 
are bound to support l)0th. They cannot remain members any 
longer than the Constitution — created by the people — permits. 
They cannot create any power but what the delegated power 
authorized them to make ; they cannot pass ex post facto laws, 
nor laws imparing the obligations of contracts; they cannot de- 
clare war nor make peace, enter into any treaty or contract with 
another State or foreign power ; they cannot make anything 
but gold and silver a legal tender, in payment of debt — and 
many other things too tedious to mention. Since Mr. Calhoun 
intended to make the legislatures of the States sovereign, we 
need not wonder that he tried to get them out of the Union — 
for of all Sovereigns, they have the poorest chance, to cai'ry out 
acts of sovereignty, I have ever read or heard of. But if Mr. 
Calhoun's states rights sovereignty be transferred to the legis- 
latures of each State, so as to give them the absolute control 
over both the lives, liberty and property of the people, and 
a right to emancipate their property and take every thing from 
the people, and be imdeu" no obligation but their own will, they 
would take away from the people the right to decide for them- 
selves and choose their own mode and measure of defence. 
And if the people refused allegiance to them, so as to bring 
themselves under the displeasure of their only and lawful 
sovereigns, and within the severe pains and penalties by which 
their Legislatures, in their high and sovereign power, would not 
fail to provide for her self-defence, in no case, where their 
authority was called in question, should judges or jury be per- 
mitted to sit on trial (unless they were first sovereign) to decide 
for them and against the citizen. The same might be tried 
without being plead, and they should not be permitted to take 
an appeal, or copy of an appeal, to the Courts of the United 



24 

States. But if they attempted to take an appeal, or copy of an 
appeal, the person so attempting should be dealt with for con 
tempt of court. So that if Mr. Calhoun's State Rights sover- 
eignty is established in the legislative bodies of each State, the 
people have a very jjoor shoAving for their sovereignty, and 
would be left without the shadow of sovereignty or protection 
in any form. The legislative bodies, in the Ordinance of 1832, 
also provided that the legislative bodies should have power to 
prescribe, from time to time, what oath of allegiance the officers 
and citizens should take ; and also defined what should be con- 
sidered treason against the Legislatures, and the punishment 
annexed. There was a bill drawn up to define what should 
constitute treason against Mr. Calhoun's sovereign legislators, 
which provided that if any one spoke against any act the Legis- 
lature passed, or resisted, in any manner whatever, the penalty 
should be death, without the benefit of the clergy. This bill 
was not passed. They then provided that there should be no 
appeal from the decision of a court-martial, so that the Legis- 
latures could place the punishment of any offence into the hands 
of the military courts, and inflict any jjunishment on the people 
they thought proper by their military power. They also pro- 
vided, that they would not admit of any^allegiance to any other 
authority than the Legislatures of the States, and to these they 
might transfer their allegiance. This shows that there must 
have been some intention on the part of the States Rights party 
to transfer the people to some other power, as they had pro- 
vided for transferring in the Ordinance, and explained in the 
address accompanying the Ordinance in 1832. Now, you see 
this is absolutely usurping the power from the people and 
placing more power in the hands of the Legislatures, than is 
possessed by any King or Prince in any Christian land. Let us 
see what kind of a government this would make, and see 
whether any such government would remain in existence, and 
whether any such government could give any security or pro- 
tection to the people of the United States. The Legislatures 
of each State are to be separate, sovereign and independent — 
under no obligation, only their own will, more than any King, 
Prince or Potentate. Now, if the Legislature of each State is' 



25 

irnder no obligation except their own will — having a right to 
decide for themselves, and choose their own mode and manner 
of redress — there coiild be no Union with other States. For if 
they are under no obligation except their own will, there could 
be no agreement between them and the other States; if no 
agreement, no Union could exist. Therefore, this principle of 
" States Rights Sovereignty," in the Legislatures of each State, 
would create as. many separate and distinct governments as 
there were States, all under no obligation but their own will, no 
more than any King, Prince or Potentate. • 

Neither would they suifer themselves to be under any other 
restraint, and to carry out that principle they would be obliged 
to remain in that situation permanently. Now, we will say no 
Union should exist, nor dispute be settled by law, for the de- 
claration of the ordinance is, that they had the right to decide 
for themselves, and choose their own mode and manner of de- 
fence, and no lawful arbiter could be found sufficiently impartial 
to decide against them ; therefore, none was provided. 

Now, according to this plan of government, the States that 
owned all the coast and ports of entry could, if they were in- 
dependent governments, by other powers acknowleged, enter 
into treaties and compacts, and treaties of commerce. But 
none of the back States could, for they would have no ports of 
entry on which to make a treaty. And those States bordering 
on the coast, to carry out their first propositions, would be un- 
der no obligation except their own will ; neither would they 
suffer themselves to be under any other obligation. It would 
not do for them to enter into any treaty with the other States. 
But if they should let the other States have commerce through 
their ports, they might tax them to any amount for the privi- 
lege. And could any one State be able to pay the expenses of 
sending a minister to enter into commercial intercourse, and 
send consuls to every port where we had commerce with other 
nations, or defend the rights of its citizens according to the 
treaty agreed to ? 

Or would a State be able to keep ships and navies to protect 
her commerce to and from her ports ? Or, if a treaty of com- 
merce were disregarded by those with whom they made the 



26 

treaty, would a State have physical power sufficient to send an 
army, and punish the offenders ? Could any government re- 
main under such a form, or could it be a government at all ? 
Therefore you may see the necessity of providing that part of 
the ordmance where they provide that they would not admit of 
any allegiance to any other authority than the legislature, and 
to these they would transfer their allegiance. Now, the remedy 
he proposes for settling disputes between Congress, is for each 
State to decide for themselves. In his book on governments, he 
says, that th^ people are sovereign at the start ; but that the 
States (meaning the Legislatures,) have created two govern- 
ments, one a Federal government, the other a State goverment, 
that the power not delegated to the Federal was reserved to the 
State ; that each one of these two governments was sovereign. 
The Federal government was sovereign as far as its power was 
delegated, and all the remainder of power was reserved to the 
Legislatures of the States. In this manner he represents Con- 
gress to be sovereign as far as her delegated power is concerned, 
and the legislative bodies of the States were sovereign over all 
the remainder of the power, and that each government had the 
right to decide for itself as to the extent of their power, and 
choose their own mode and manner of redress. He says that 
each one has the right to decide as to the extent of their power. 
Over whom ? He says, over the people. Not over the govern- 
ment, but over the people. He says the government cannot be 
made defendant, for they are sovereign, but they may become 
plaintiff if they choose. But, he says, when the States and the 
Federal government come into conflict in regard to their power, 
each having a right to decide for themselves, choose their own 
mode and manner of defence, the State can resort to remon- 
strance, or try to form a party of the nearest combination of 
interests, so as to be able to get a compromise. Now, a corn- 
promisor has to take M'hat he can get, not what he ought to 
have. So this plan of government by Mr. Calhoun is a very 
poor protector, under any circumstance. If you have no better 
protection against those scamps than to remonstrate and com- 
promise, you might as well tell a thief, who had stolen your 
horse, that if he would not steal any more he might keep him, 



aud then not ex2:)ect him to steal any more. Does any one be- 
lieve he would not steal any more ? But another remedy of- 
fered was, secession. This remedy, his party are trying now, 
which he recommended as the best of all, and surest against all 
the evils spoken of. 

We see what great protection we have; and how secure every 
man is in his home, his family and fireside, as was promised. 
Now, all those principles and remedies proposed by Mr. Cal- 
houn are outside of the Constitution, both of the States and 
the United States, and, if established, would destroy the gov- 
ernment of the people. But those remedies were introduced 
to protect the government of the Legislatures of the States, 
against the Legislators of Congress. 

There is not one argument used by Mr. Calhoun to protect 
the citizen against acts of majorities, nor acts of legislation 
either in the States or the United States ; tl^erefore, according 
to his State Rights government, they have no power but to 
obey. And, as Congress and the Legislatures both had the 
right to decide for themselves as to the extent of their own 
power over the people, and the people had no course but to 
obey, I think it leaves the people in a very bad condition, and, 
I think they might begin to find it out. But now it appears 
that Lincoln is acting with both these powers to emancipate. He 
has, or pretended he would, emancipate both by legislation and 
acts of majorities in Congress and in the States. Now, the 
point of difference M'as, that Congress has not the right to 
emancipate, but that it should not be denied ; but that, the 
Legislatures of the States had the right to emancipate every- 
thing from the people, so he and his party both are Abolition- 
ists. There is no difference in their principles, so let the people 
of the North and the South look into these things and see if 
either of the Legislatures had the right to emancipate the Afri- 
can property. 

They have, as they claim, and as they are really acting upon, 
the right of taking away life, liberty and property from the 
people, by forcing them to kill, rob and murder each other, 
whether they are willing or not. To establish the power of 
legislation, or acts of legislation, either in Congress or States, 



28 

is a government of robbery instead of a government of protec- 
tion. Such is the Government of the Constitution of the United 
States, as I have so fully shown. Now, all those powers claimed 
under Lincoln's party and under Calhoun's party, are outside of 
the Constitution — are witiiout foundation — and in that way they 
settled all their disputes, instead of referring to the Courts of 
the United States. Their compromises were unconstitutional. 
Not one of them could give any security for the future ; but, as 
Mr. Webster said, he hoped that no more slave States would 
come into the Union, this was supporting and encouraging the 
principle of robbing, under the acts of legislative power, and 
depriving the people of the rights secured to themselves under 
the Constitution ; for the Constitution of the United States and 
the Articles of Confederation are all parts of the Union, as I 
have before shown. They provide that each citizen of each 
State shall have free egress and ingress to and from any other 
State, and be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the 
citizens of the several States, subject to the duties, taxation and 
restrictions of the same State ; provided such restriction shall 
not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property into 
any other State. And provided, also, that no imposition duties 
or restrictions shall be laid by any State on the property of the 
United States, or either of them. Now, it will be seen that 
Mr. Webster's counsel was outside of the Constitution, and, like 
Clay and Calhoun, if his principles were adopted, they would 
utterly destroy all the rights secured to the people under the 
fixed and established principles of their government. As no 
law nor regulation should be passed by any State, to discharge 
a servant, or person bound to service due to a citizen of another 
State, and as no State had power to pass an ex post facto law, or 
law imparing the obligation of contracts, and the citizens were 
to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects, we 
see that if Webster's principles were adopted they Avould take 
away every security from the people. For their principles 
leave them in the hands of legislative power, and without any 
protection imder the laws established under the Constitution. 
Now, Calhoim's plan of government is to adopt his own States 
Rights legislative power, and also adopt Clay's remedy of com- 



29 

promising policy for Webster's abolition principles, for his party- 
convention in Cincinnati. In their platform or plan of govern- 
ment, they declared that it shonld not be denied, but that 
a State had a right to emancipate — which, according to the ap- 
plication of the word State, applied by Mr. Calhoun, is meant 
the Legislatures of the States. So you see that neither of those 
three great champions advocated the rights of the people, but 
advocated the right in legislative bodies to have the power over 
the lives, libei'ties and property of the people ; and the right to 
take everything from the people, being under no obligation 
except their own will. Now, this is the platform of the gov- 
ernment laid down by Clay, Calhoun and Webster ; and this is 
the kind of government attempted to be carried out by the 
Lincoln and the Davis party. This is the deplorable condition 
of the people under their military power ; for as I have hereto- 
fore stated and explahied, that this Union could never be 
destroyed unless we created parties. And that the liberties of 
the people were so securely protected under the Constitution, 
that they could never take them away unless they got them 
under military power — and both these they have accomplished. 
From what I have shown, neither Calhoun, Clay nor Webster 
ever pretended to dispute that a State had the right to emanci- 
pate. But Clay's party, and Webster's party, never defined how 
far their power extended. But the Calhoun party has defined 
the power of emancipation — ^how far it extends in the hands of 
the Legislatures of each State — that they had the absolute con- 
trol over the lives, liberty and property of the people — that they 
had the clear right to declare these obligations, and when once 
declared, the people had no course but to obey. But if they 
refused obedience to their only and lawful sovereign, the Legis- 
latures in their high and sovereign capacity could not fail to 
provide for their self-defence, the fault and folly would be their 
own. This principle, if established over the people, would be 
one of the greatest despotisms that exists on the globe. 

Now, while those great politicians were pretending to oppose 
each other, and representing themselves as the great protectors 
of the people's rights secured to themselves by the Constitution, 
they were undermining every right, liberty and privilege they 



30 

had secured to themselves. But all three of these men have 
been called to a judgment seat, to be tried by a tribunal that 
cannot be deceived. They may betray and deceive man, but 
they cannot deceive God. So let all our politicians think of 
what benefits they received on earth, and what may be their 
punishment hereafter. See what destruction of life and proj)- 
erty, what misery and distress has resulted from the principles 
they have imposed on the confiding and unsusi^ecting. Will 
God suffer such things ? 

Now, after that I have shown all these things, when we con- 
sider who these men Avere, who laid the foundation for the 
destruction of our government, and who introduced so many 
misconstructions of our government, is it not the most astonish- 
ing thing that so many good and wise men among us have over- 
looked the misconstructions put upon the plan of protecting 
our rights, liberty and property. We have been uniting with 
these parties, and looking up to their teachings as a guide, in 
place of examining for ourselves, and thus we are dragged under 
despotism. But each of these three leaders had their parties, 
and each party looked up to' their leader as their guide and 
director. The object of those who made the most noise was to 
get an ofiice, as a reward for his party services ; and this is the 
way so many good men have been deceived, and have become 
like the blind man leading the blind, when both fall into the 
ditch. We do know that thousands upon thousands of as good 
men as the Avorld has produced, have fallen in and taken sides 
with all those party combinations, and they were all wrong. 
And indeed, we can find very few Avho have not taken sides 
with one party or other, and, as I have shown, have been acting 
in direct opposition to their own interests. And I have written 
this work to propose a compromise with all parties, for we have 
all done wrong. 

Let everything be forgiven by all parties that have existed 
heretofore, that no charge of treason shall be brought against 
any one. For w6 have all been guilty of assisting these parties 
in carrying out those princiiiles which were opposed to the gov- 
ernment, established by the people, and the charge of treason 
might be applied to all. We know that there are thousands 



31 

«pon thousands of cases where wrong was done. It was an 
error of the head and not of the heart. And as we do not 
know who was guilty, or wrong intentionally, let all things past 
be forgiven ; let there be no charge of treason ; no confiscation 
of property ; no exciting ; no disfranchising from holding of- 
fice. But let all parties fall back under the Constitution in its 
purity, where every member is secured in the right to buy 
whatever property he thinks fit, and go with it into any State 
or Territory in the United States, and be protected in it. Now, 
establish this plan of government, as it is really the original 
government established by the Constitution in all its original 
purity, with the necessary explanations I have set forth. This 
Union could never more be destroyed. And as our experience 
has proved, we will not need to keep^ standing army, for every 
one is under the Union. A standing army to defend each other 
on account of religion, sovereignty, or any pretence Avhatever. 
So we need no army, except for the protection of our commerce 
against pirates, as it goes to and from our i^orts, and our fron- 
tier territories from savage depredations. But to become as 
happy a people as we were, it might be proper to dispense with 
the payment of the debts contracted by these two parties. For 
I consider both the parties nothing but mob governments. 
Both of them are out of the Union — Lincoln as much as Davis. 
Neither of them is acknowledged as an independent govern- 
ment. All the commercial intercourse of Lincoln's government 
is carried on through the treaty existing under the authority of 
the people's government, and, as good luck will have it, we are 
not in debt to any other government for the expenses of this 
war, and these two parties being nothing but mobs, no one has 
any right to pay. 

The manner in which I would recommend that this compro- 
mise should be made, is 'this: let a meeting of all the Legisla- 
tures, North and South, be called ; let them call for an armis- 
tice, and then let a member from every county in each State 
meet to hold a peace convention. And if this platform, written 
by me, be adopted, let the Governor of every State be directed 
to call every man in his State to order all the officers and sol- 
diers to shoulder arms and come home. Let them be armed so 



32 

that no undue advantage could be taken of them by any mob. 
Now, this convention ought to be elected by the people. And 
let every State have this platform presented in whatever num- 
bers they might think necessary ; so that it might be examined 
by the people, and let them elect members to the convention 
to approve or disapprove of it. It is my own opinion that there 
AvUl not be one man who wishes for the welfare of his country, 
or the happiness and security of the people, who will not be 
willing to adopt it. There is another thing I would recom- 
mend, that the Presidents of these two mob governments should 
both resign, and let all the members of Congress in each gov- 
ernment resign. And, indeed, those co nventions have the right 
to call on them to resign, and elect others in their place, but 
give any of them the privi|^ege of being a candidate for any of- 
fice for which they desire to run. 

It is my desire that no man shall be disgraced, who willingly 
falls back under the Union in its origmal purity, for we- have all 
been so guilty of wrong in these matters, that we must go back 
forgiving, and as far as possible, forget all past wrongs, as far as 
it regards one another. Let us be governed by the coimsel of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when asked by his apostles if they 
should forgive one another seven times, he told them not only 
seven times, but seventy times seven. 

Although I had but two sons, David and Jonathan, lovely, 
kind, obliging, dutiful sons, with a happy prospect before them) 
and have lost both in the war, I am willing to forgive all who 
will return willingly to the LTnion in its original purity. But 
there is one thing against which I wish to guard the minds of 
the people, that is, saying that they would rather go under any 
king or monarch than go back into the Union. They use those 
words, thinking that the Lincoln government is the original 
Union, which it is not. For the Abolitionists prohibit every 
citizen from owning slave property in their own State, and pro- 
hibit the people of other States, owning African property, from 
moving >vith their property into their States. They have left 
the Union, and if the South unites with them, the riglit of every 
citizen in his own State must be acknowledged, to own and buy 
slave property if he choose ; the right also for every citizen 



83 

who is a member of the Union, to move into any other State 
or Territory in the Union. In this way there could be no par- 
ties among us. But those who say they would go under any 
other government than go back into the Union and Constitu- 
tion in its purity, do not know how many evils they would have 
to imdergo in a government of a king. We have been told 
that we resisted the government of England on account of the 
tax on tea ; but that was not the cause of our resistance. The 
colonies legislated on all domestic affairs, as we do now in States, 
but their acts were not acknowledged to become a law until 
ratified by the Parliament of England. The time for passing 
at that period was so long and tedious, and our acts or calls on 
England for protection from the Indians so often forgotten or 
neglected, and we being in the power of England, could be 
forced to fight when and where they pleased, and pay taxes as 
often as they pleased. Our statesmen saw the dangers ahead 
of them, and this and similar circumstances caused them to re- 
sist the King of England. 

Now, if we were to put ourselves under any other govern- 
ment, this would be our condition. Our sons could be taken 
from their fathers and mothers to fight in foreign coimtries — 
husbands from their wives and children. They would tax us 
to any amount they pleased, like those two military chieftains 
are doing now. There is no safety but to go back under the 
people's government, and then you will be safe from all these 
things. 

Now let us see who were those that created the party, and 
how, when and who introduced and advocated their principles, 
until they have assumed such a form of despotism as it is this 
day. Calhoun, Clay and Webster were considered the great 
champions of their day, and we^e looked up to as guides, by 
which to conduct the ship of our government of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States safely through. Each one acted his 
part in the destruction of our government of the people. Clay 
was a great compromisor. Webster hoped that there would not 
be any more slave States. Calhoun was a great separate States 
Rights man. All these principles were outside of the Constitu. 

tion, but they answered the j^urpose of creating parties. Each 
3 



34 

party, in place of examining the Constitution for the correctness 
of their principles, quoted their arguments as the standard of 
government, in place of the principles embodied in the Consti- 
tution, and by that means divided the people into great political 
parties, each and every one of them acting outside of the Con- 
stitution, and without any legal authority, for the conventions 
that framed a government for the people of the United States, 
did not leave their rights in the hands of compromisors ; but as 
I have clearly shown, secured all their rights, and fixed them 
so secure that no compromisor has any right to compromise 
them away. If we had no better security for our rights than 
compromises, or one party against another, it would be no 
security at all. It would be like throwing a cork on the sea — 
it would be here to-day, but no one could tell where it would 
be to-morrow. These are the principles adopted by these three 
great politicians. Mr. Clay was a great compromisor, so was 
Webster and Calhoun. The plan of settling all disputes, com- 
promise in place of a court and jury, as is appointed by the Con- 
stitution. Now, if we had no other way to settle disputes but 
by compromise, it takes two to agree to a compromise before 
you can get a compromise, and if one of the parties did not 
intend to pay the debt, of course he would not agree to com- 
promise ; and if you had no other way to get your money you 
would have to take it by force, or not get it at all. Now, if we 
adopt this plan of government to settle all cases of dispute as a 
standard of government, in place of a court and jury, those 
principles alone would destroy the government of the people ; 
for whenever there is no court and jury, there can be no gov- 
ernment, and now mind, this plan of government is to be agreed 
to by those men. Assummg the law-making power, they were 
to be the compromisors themselves, Avhether the people should 
submit to the laws they passed or not. So you see this was 
laying down the same principles they have been carrying out to 
take the power out of the people and fix it in themselves, for if 
we have no court and jury, of course we, the people, have no 
government, and this plan would leave the legislators to decide 
for themselves, choose their own mode and measure of defence, 
and then under no obligation to the people than their own will. 



35 

corresponding with Calhonn's platform of govemmient. Now 
let U8 examine Mr. Webster's platform, and see whether it runs 
into the same channel. He hopes there will be no more slave 
States admitted into the Union, and also agrees to the right of 
a State to emancipate. So does Calhomi and Clay. So we see 
they all three agree on that principle as the standard of govern" 
ment. So they all agree that far. In the Cincinnati Convention 
they declared it should not be denied but that a State had the 
right to emancipate ; and in the general Democratic Convention, 
as they call themselves, their declarations were, that a State had 
the right to take everything from the people. But let us see 
what the Constitutional Government, created by the people, 
says, and see if Messrs. Webster, Clay and Calhoun's principles 
are not right in opposition to the constituted authority of the 
people's government, and if adopted would destroy every pro- 
vision in the Constitution of the United States, as completely 
as if it never had existed, which is the only Union that exists. 
Now, as all who claim the right of sovereignty, claim the 
right to create the laws that are to govern within their territorial 
government, they being sovereign, the laws they create^ are sov- 
ereign, and by those laws they control all within their territorial 
jurisdiction. 

Now, the people of the United States being sovereign, they 
claim the right to create the laws they are to be governed by, 
in place of kings, monarchs and despots creating them. Now, 
the laws they created will be sovereign also. They all agree to 
be governed by those laws and to govern all others by them. 
Now, the laws they created will be found, first, in the Declara- 
tion of Independence ; secondly, under the Articles of Confed- 
eration ; thirdly, by the way of amendments, called the Consti- 
tution of the United States. But the Avords United States in- 
cluded all three of those docum3ats, for the Constitution pro- 
vides that all engagements entered into before the adoption of 
the Constitution shall be as valid against the United States as 
under the Confederation; and that -this Union should be per- 
petual ; and that all men in office throughout the United States 
should be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support and de- 
fend the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding 



36 

any constitution or law in any State to the contrary. So you 
see that the officers of every State are bound by oath, or affirma- 
tion, to disregard the constitution or law of their own State, or 
of any other State, if it conflicts with the laws created under 
the Constitution of the United States, and only because it was 
created by the sovereign people jointly of all the United States, 
and they agreed jointly that they would be governed by those 
fixed, established principles themselves, and govern all others 
by them. They also agreed that they should be the supreme 
law of the land ; but that amendments might be made, but that 
no amendment should be made but by the consent of three- 
fourths of the States. Now, as every law contained in the Con- 
stitution of the United States is provided and adopted for the 
protection of each member of the Union, and preserve him or 
her securely in their persons, papers, houses, and effects ; and 
that we, under the agreement of a firm league of friendship, to 
support each other against all attacks made against us, or any 
of us, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other 
pretence whatever, which would include everything that could 
be thought of or named. Now, let me see whether Webster's 
principles will correspond with those established under this 
league of friendship, and the laws the people agreed to be gov- 
erned, and to govern all others by. Now, it appears that Mr. 
Webster hopes that no move States shall be admitted into the 
Union as slave States. Now, let me see what the Constitution^, 
or Articles of Confederation says. It provides that the citizens' 
of each State shall have free ingress and egress to and from any 
other State, and enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the 
citizens' in the several States, subject to the same duties, tax- 
ation and restrictions of the same State respectively ; provided 
those restrictions shall not extend, so far as to prevent removal 
of property from one State to any other. The citizens being 
inhabitants, provided, also, that no duties or restrictions shall be 
laid by any State on the property of the United States, or ei- 
ther of them. 

Now, you see those Abolition principles adopted are in strict 
opposition to the provisions of the Constitution, and would take 
away the rights secured to each citizen of the Union, North 
and South, and is usurping power prohibited expressly by words 



37 

of the Constitution. The United States provides that no State 
shall have power to pass an ex post facto law, a law imparing the 
obligation of contracts. 

Now, this would be passing an ex post facto law, a law 
imparing obligation of contracts: and as the oath under 
the authority of the Constitution of the United States is 
that every one in office through the United States shall be 
bound by oath, or affirmation, to support the Constitution 
of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution or 
law in any State to the contrary. Now, under the Aboli- 
tion platform they assume, and have, by acts of legislation 
and acts of majorities, emancipated and taken the African 
property from their own citizens, and also passed acts, if the 
citizens of other States moved into those States, their pro- 
perty should be taken from them, and set free, when the law 
of the Constitution provides that the citizens of each State 
shall have free ingress and egress to and from any other 
State, and "that no duties or restrictions shall be laid by any 
State on the property of the United States or either of them. 
Now, this shows these laws are all usurped, and right in op- 
position to the laws of the Union. • The Constitution of the 
United States also provides that the citizens are to. be se- 
cured in their persons, papers, houses and effects, and shall 
be preserved inviolably. It also provides that no law or 
regulation shall be made by any State to discharge a ser- 
vant or person bound to service due to the citizens of an- 
other State, but if a servant or person bound to service 
shall escape and flee to another State, they shall be bound 
to deliver up such servant or person bound to service. It 
also provides that no private property shall be taken for 
public use without full compensation to the owner. It also 
provides that the military power shall be in subordination 
to the civil. It also provides that no State shall have power 
to pass an ex post facto luw — a law imparing the obligation 
of contracts. Now, those Abolitionists of the Northern 
States, under the platform of Clay, Calhoun and Webster, 
have set aside every provision named and created by the 



38 

laws, right in opposition to the Constitution and the laws 
established ; and if adopted as the standard of government 
in place of laws adopted by the Constitution, it would de- 
stroy every provision of the Constitution as completely as 
if it had never existed, and place the power in the hands of 
legislators, and acts of majorities, and they under no obli- 
gation, only there own will, more than any king, prince or 
potentate, as they have claimed, leaving the people without 
any course but to obey. When under the authority of the 
Constitution of the United States no power has been ex- 
tended to any one in office, but delegated powers, which is 
a business set apart for them to do. 

Those delegated powers expressly named, having no power 
but what was expressly named, and when they had dis- 
charged the duty of the office which they were elected, or 
appointed to do, to the extent of their delegated powers, 
their power ceased, and under the Constitution of the United 
States, they are restricted and prohibited by express words) 
to have no power beyond those delegated. J^ow, let us see 
if those powers claimed by the Abolition party would not 
overthrow the government of the people as well as Mr. Clay, 
and transfer the power from the people into the hands of the 
legislators, and make a government of robbery, murder and 
destruction of life, liberty and property, in place of* a gov- 
ernment of protection to the citizens, persons, papers, houses 
and effects, in place of supporting and defending us, accord- 
ing to the joint agreement under the Articles of Confedera- 
tion, against any attack made against us, or any of us, on ac- 
count of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any pretence what- 
ever, which would cover every thing that could be thought 
of or named ; and as we own no property now but what was 
owned at that time, and as we were bound to support and 
defend no one but such as were members of the Union, and 
this Union was to be perpetuated, and no State had power 
to impair the obligations of contracts, this put it out of the 
power of a State to make any change in the contracts. But 



39 

let us see how far those Abolitionists have departed from 
their contract, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Constitution. 

Now, it must be remembered that the people have created 
all laws, and agreed to be governed by them, and to govern 
all others by them. So far as Territories or the States ex- 
tended — for all the States have to come into the Union under 
the same agreement the rest did — it is not left to Congress 
to say what terms a State shall come into the Union on. The 
Constitution lixes the terms every State shall come into 
the Union on, and every officer, from the constable to the 
President, has to take the same oath the rest took, that is, to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
contrary. Now, it is necessary that the Constitution of 
every State should correspond exactly with the Constitution 
of the United States ; for if they were required to support 
and defend two opposites, it would be impossible to do it, 
and any one that would take such an oath would perjure 
himself. So, according to the oath to be taken to support 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, you must 
disregard every oatli required by any one, or either of the 
States or the United States, if it conflicts, or is in opposition 
to the laws made by the Constitution of the United States. 
Now, it appears that Webster's abolition party has done like 
the Clay and Calhoun party. Every law they have created 
has been right in opposition to the laws created by the Con- 
stitution. In the first place, they were to protect every 
member of the Union, on any account whatever. TTie Con- 
stitution provides that no law or regulations shall be made 
by any State to discharge a servant, or person bound to 
service, due to a citizen of another State ; but if a servant 
escapes from one State to another State, they shall be bound 
to deliver up such servant, or persons bound to service. Does 
not the Constitution of the United States provide that a cit- 
izen shall be secured in their papers, houses and effects ? 
Can a citizen be secured in anything, if the legislative 



40 

bodies have power to take from them all those rights secured 
to them by the Constitution ? The United States provides 
that no private property shall be taken without full com- 
pensation to the owner. It also provides that military law 
shall be subordinate to the civil law. Now, by the military 
law, by force of arms, they have murdered and robbed us 
of our African property, right in opposition and contrary to 
the laws of the Union; they denied us, of the Southern 
States, and also the citizens of all the Northern States, the 
right to buy or carry African property into any Territory, 
when the Constitution of the United States provided that no 
duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State on the 
property of the United States, nor any particular State. 
Yet they pretend they are members of the Union, when they 
have violated and created laws right in opposition to those 
created by the Union. They have made war against the 
Southern States, and called on foreigners, and forced the 
good people of the Northern States to come and assist them 
murdering the people. There were many thousands of them 
who had no desire to hurt us or deprive us of our rights, but 
would have assisted us in protecting us in our rights, but for 
the course pursued by the leaders of secession, which placed 
every good Union man where he could not help us, for the 
secession leaders had declared the people out of the Union, 
and this gave the Abolition party excuse to call on the 
people at the North to preserve the Union. So you see 
they acted into one another's hands to get the people under 
military power. The Abolition party pretended they were 
preserving the Union, when they were doing every thing in 
their power to destroy it. And now I wish all honest men 
at the North, as well as the honest men of the South, to look 
what they forced on the people of the South when they sur- 
rendered up their arms, in order that we might be restored 
to the Union in its original purity — and let us see what con- 
dition they proposed to receive us into the Union on. They 
pretended the object of the war was to bring the South 



41 

back into the Union ; and let ns see what kind of oath they 
require of the people of the South before they would adnii|; 
them into the Union. The oath they propose was, that they 
should support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States, and the Union of the States thereunder ; and that 
they should abide by, and faithfully support all laws and 
proclamations, which have been made during the existing 
rebellion, with reference to the emancipation of slaves. 
Now, you see the oath they require to be taken is riglrt in 
opposition to the oath required by the Constitution. There 
is no power delegated to any one, to require any other oath 
than to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States, in order to be admitted as a member of the Union ; 
but you see they have added all acts of legislation and proc- 
lamation of the President, when every act of legislation and 
proclamations of the President was strictly in opposition to 
the provisions of the Constitution, for the Constitution pro- 
vided that no private property should be taken without full 
compensation. This oath they require to be taken, corres- 
ponds with the oath of the Calhoun platform of 1832, where 
they required all officers to support and defend all acts of 
the legislators, both what they had passed, and what they 
might pass, without naming the Constitution at all ; but 
the Abolitionists named the Constitution, and in addition, 
required the people to support and defend the acts of legis- 
lation and proclamations of the President, strictly in oppo- 
sition to the Constitution. By this you can perceive whether 
the Abolitionists or secessionists are acting in concert, for 
both or either of these principles would utterly overthrow 
the government of the people. Placed then under the 
legislative power, and then under no obligation, only their 
own will, when the Constitution has given them no powers 
but delegated powers, with proper prohibitions and restric- 
tions to confine their acts within the powers delegated. 

It seems from this, from what I have shown, that those 
two parties are acting in concert together, in order to get 



42 

the people under military powers ; so that they can take all 
our rights and liberty from usy and place us under the great- 
est military despotism on earth. 

Now in place of requiring the people of the South to take 
the oath of the Constitution of the United States, as is re- 
quired by the people's government, which is the only and 
all the Union that does exist, they require the people of the 
South to support and defend all acts passed by Congress 
and proclamations of the President during the time of the 
rebellion, and the emancipation of the African property, 
and the Constitution of the United States. Now, it was 
impossible to support and defend all the acts of legislators 
and the proclamations of the President, and the Constitution 
of the United States if the acts of Congress, and the proc- 
lamations were right in opposition to the Constitution of the 
United States; and if we take an oath to support and de- 
fend two opposites, we cannot do it, and must perjure our- 
selves. We were required to take an oath to support and 
defend the emancipation of our own property, taken from 
lis by the military power, when the Constitution of the 
United States provides that the military power shall be in 
subordination to the civil, and 'the civil law provides that 
no private property shall be taken without full compensa- 
tion to the owner. Now, has not this military power taken 
the African property from their owners, and by military 
power forced them to take an oath "to sustain them in their 
robbery ? And it is right in opposition to the laws of the 
Unfon. This is first forcing the people to take an oath to 
support and defend the Union, ^nd forcing them to resist 
the Constitution. But what I wish the people to notice par- 
ticular is, this oath corresponds with the oath of the seces- 
sionists, under the ordinance of 1832, where they required 
every one in office to take an oath to defend whatever the 
Legislatures had passed, or might pass, to the full extent 
and true meaning of the same. Now, by this oath, the 
emancipator is required to support all acts the Legislatures 



43 

p^, and all proclamations of the President, when, at the 
same time, I have shown that every act passed by the Legis- 
latures, and all proclamations made by President Lincoln, 
are utterly unconstitutional, and right in opposition to the 
provision of it, and assuming all powers by the legislators 
that any king, prince or potentate ever did on earth. Now, 
it will be seen by Webster's Abolition platform that it is 
their object to transfer all power from the people to the 
legislators , and the Abolitionists have advanced a little fur- 
ther than the secessionists, by includiag the proclamation of 
the President, Now, the constitutional court has already 
decided, in the Dred Scott case, that Africans were property, 
and as much entitled to protection, all over the United 
States, as any other property. Now, if acts of majorities 
and proclamations of the President have the power to take 
away one part of our property, what is to hinder them to 
take all? and could the citi-zens be secure in anything? 
What would become of that portion of the Constitution 
which provides that the citizens are to be secure in their 
person, papers, houses and effects, and that security to be 

preserved inviolably ? 

Now, what greater trespasses can be committed against the 
Union than has been committed by the present abolition admin- 
istration, against the people, South and Nortti ? For they have 
caused, by their unconstitutional acts, as well as the secession 
leaders, all the destruction of life, liberty and property that has 
been done in the United States. It is useless for them to say 
the South brought on the war, by going out of the Union. 
They went out of the Union first. In the first place, they for- 
feited every obligation under the Union, entered into, as I have 
already shown, to the people of the South. If there is an obli- 
gation entered into between the people, both North and South, 
that abolition parties have not failed to comply with, and for- 
feited their agreement with the balance of the. members of the 
Union, I do not know Avhat one of them it is, and if there is one 
they have complied with, I do wish some one would inform me. 
And the next question is, I will ask what one of the obligations 
entered into under the Constitution of the United States, that a 



44 

Southron has failed to comply with to the North. I challenge 
the world for an answer — have not the Abolitionists ? for I will 
charge the blame on no one else. Have they not given just 
reasons for the South to separate from the Northern States ? 
They run the Africans over to the Southern States and sold 
them ; shortly after tried to rob and take them from their own- 
ers, without compensation. Is such conduct in accordance with 
their obligation ? I write these things that the people may see 
and know the truth — not in support of secession, for no man on 
earth can be more opposed to the Southern secession than I am. 
The Union is what I want to be restored to its original purity, 
and every one of the United States to comply with all the obli- 
gations entered into, to protect and defend each other against 
all attacks made against us, or any of us, on any account what- 
ever, and then love and unity would exist. We never could 
be made to love each other by murdering and killing each other, 
and in the situation all of us are in, there is great danger, for if 
we were to get into a war with some other strong government) 
the South might join in with that poAver and destroy every 
thing the North has, and bring ourselves under a foreign power. 
I speak this not that I know anything, but it is human nature. 
It is certainly better to be friends than enemies, and the only 
way to be friends and keep friendship, is to do right with each 
other. So far as the secession of South Carolina was concerned, 
I do not consider it was doing any injury to the North. The 
injury done was entirely to the South — they were trying to get 
the people's government of the South destroyed, and bring the 
people of the South under the greatest military despotism like 
the abolition party, in trying to get the North and South both 
in, and the secessionists helping them. Now, in my showing 
that the South had done the North no harm, it was not to jus- 
tify a course pursued, for if the South had done what they 
ought to have done, and what I wanted them to do, was to 
carry their case into the Court of the United States, and have 
our rights acknowledged there, and if the Abolitionists had 
refused to submit to the decision of the United States Court* 
they would be guilty of treason, and if the Courts had called on 
the President to execute the laws, and if he would refuse, he 



45 

could be broke of his commission ; and if he aided or assisted 
in the resistance of the decision of the Courts, he would be 
guilty of treason ; then all the good Union men at the North 
would have assisted in protecting the South, but that course 
would have settled all those party combinations and prevented 
them from getting the people under the military power. Now, 
this is the course I have tried to show was pursued by the 
Webster abolition party, and if established as a standard of 
government, and which this present administration is carrying 
out, it would destroy the constitutional rights of the people as 
completely as if they never had a right, being the same kind of 
government offered the people by the separate State Rights 
doctrine, would do if their principles were carried out, and 
as I will now attempt more fully to show what kind of a gov- 
ernment they intend to establish over the people when they get 
our government destroyed, and themselves enthroned under 
the military power, for they have 'not got the people as fully 
under them as they intend, and of this I think I can convince any 
sane man, when I compare Mr. Calhoun's platform with Clay's 
and Webster's. 

I will now commence showing Calhoun's platform of princi- 
ples, which wUl correspond very well with Clay and Webster's, 
in taking the power all from the people, and places a power in 
the legislators ; also, in destroying all the provisions of the Con- 
stitution, as Clay's party and Webster's has done. Let us see 
what Mr. Calhoun has to perform to finish the destruction of 
the people's government, under authority of the Constitution. 
His platform was this : that every State was a separate sotc- 
reign State, had a right to decide for themselves, choose their 
own mode and measure of defence, and they were under no ob- 
ligation, only their own will ; neither should they suffer them- 
.selves to be under any other. That they have the right to de- 
cide for themselves, and choose their own mode and measure 
and defence. And there was no lawful arbiter could be found 
.sufficiently impartial to decide against the State ; therefore, 
none was provided. Now, to prove that is false, the Constitu- 
tion of the United States provides that the judicial court of the 
United States shall extend to all cases of law and equity, aris- 



46 

ing under the Constitution of the United States, to all cases in 
whi.ch the United States shall be a party. Two or more States, 
or different States, and in all cases where a State shall be a 
party, it shall have the original jurisdiction. So you see the 
first declaration has not the shadow of authority, and, if adopt- 
ed, would destroy every part of power of the people's govern- 
ment. If we had no court and jury we would have no govern- 
ment. But let us see who he applies the word State to. They 
ask the question in their address, accompanying the ordinance 
of 1832, in it, Who can alter and destroy the government? Is 
it the States, or is it the people ? It will be seen they make 
the States one party, and the people another. The address an- 
swered the question itself. It says : The States, as States, rati- 
fied the compact. The people of the United States had no 
agency in forming the government ; that there is not now, nor 
never has been, such a political body as the people of the 
United States. That the extent of the power does not depend 
on the people of the United States, but upon the State Legis- 
latures. They have the absolute control over the lives, liberty 
and property of the people ; the clear right to declare the ex- 
tent of their obligation, and, when once declared, the people 
had no course but to obey. And if they refused obedience so 
as to bring them imder the displeasure of their only and laAvful 
sovereigns, and within the severe pains and penalties of the 
the legislators, in their high and sovereign power, will not fail 
to provide for their self-defence, the faults and folly will be 
their own. 

NoAV, the defence put up in behalf of all who claim the right 
of sovereignty, the penalty is death, if you speak against any 
act they pass, or resist it in any manner whatever. Now, they 
brought up a bill defining what should be considered treason 
against the State, which was, if any one spoke against any act 
passed by the legislators, or resisted it in any manner whatever, 
the penalty should be death, without the benefit of the clergy, 
which means, without any chance of being reprieved. This bill 
was not passed. I could give the reasons why, but I think it is 
not necessary, at present. They also provided that no one 
should hold an office of profit or trust, civil or military, mem- 



ber of the Legislature excepted, unless they would take an oath 
well and truly, to obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, and 
whatever every act the legislators passed, to the full extent and 
true meaning of the same. They also provided that in no case 
wherein was drawn in question the authority of the ordinance, 
or in any act in pursuance of the same, no judge or jury should 
be permitted to set on the trial unless they should first take an 
oath that they would well and truly obey, execute, impose the 
ordinance, and whatever act the legislators shall pass in pur- 
suance of the same. They further provided, that in no case 
wherein was drawn in question the ordinance or any act passed 
by the legislators, in pursuance of the same, no appeal, or a 
copy of appeal, should be taken to the Supreme Court of the 
United States ; and if any one attemj^ted to take an appeal, or 
copy of an appeal, the person attempting to take an appeal, or 
copy of an appeal, should be dealt with for contempt of the 
court. They provided, also, that there should be no appeal 
from the decision, of a court-martial. Now, when there is no 
appeal from any court, that would, inevitably, place it above all 
other courts. Now, any one of those provisions adopted by 
the ordinance, and the address accompanying the ordinance, is 
strictly against the principles of the Constitution of the people, 
under those fixed, established principles that they all agreed to be 
governed by themselves, and govern others by. For theConsti- 
tution provides that the military powers shall be in subordina- 
tion to the civil power. 

It will be seen that the oath required by the secessionists v>'as 
to support I and defend all acts the legislators passed, instead of 
the Constitution of the United States. It is in strict accord- 
ance with the oath required to be taken by the abolition ad- 
ministration, and what is very astonishing, I never have heard 
one of the head secessionists find any fault to the oath, but 
takes it freely, and encourages all others to take it, without 
finding any fault to it whatever. Now, both the abolitionist 
and secessionist pretend they are supporting and defending the 
people's government in their secured rights under the Constitu- 
tion. But, do not actions speak louder than words ? Both 
those parties claimed to be over the people, and transferred to 



48 

the legislators and the proclamations of the President as great 
power as has ever been claimed over any people upon earth, in 
ancient or modern times. Now, if there is no appeal from the 
military, it would establish the military above all other laws, 
and the legislators having power to make any law they pleased, 
and being under no obligation, only their own will, they could 
place the punishment of any kind they thought fit, to be tried by 
the military court, and as in no case wherein was drawn in ques- 
tion the ordinance, or any act the legislators would pass, the 
same might be tried without being plead, and that there shall 
be no appeal had in the case, so that if a citizen was to dispute 
any act the legislators passed, or the authority of the ordinance, 
or if some malicious person charged him falsely, he was not al- 
lowed to put the trial off, until he could obtain witnesses to 
prove his innocence ; and they could try him without his "Case 
being plead, and as the definition of treason was that if they 
spoke against any acts passed by the legislators, or resisted it 
in any manner whatever,' the penalty was death, without any 
chance of being reprieved ; and the secession party also pro- 
vided that in no case wherein was drawn in question the au- 
thority of the ordinance, or any act passed by the legislators in 
pursuance of the same, no judge nor jury shall be permitted to 
set on the trials, unless they shall first take an oath, well and 
truly to obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, and whatever 
acts the legislators pass, to the full extent and true meaning of 
the same. They provided, also, that the legislators should have 
power to prescribe to ofticers and citizens, from time to time, 
what oath of allegiance they shall take, and define what should 
constitute treason against States; and also the punishment an- 
nexed to treason. Now, all those provisions were adopted, and 
many others to secure the power of the people, under the au- 
thority of the Legislature, that they had attempted to do under 
the ordinance of 1832, and as I have shown. They knew well 
what principles to adopt to secure the life, liberty and property 
in themselves, for the law was, if you spoke against them, or 
resisted them in any manner whate-ver, the penalty was death, 
without any chance of being reprieved; and no judge or jury 
was permitted to set on the trial without first being sworn to 



- 49 

decide in favor of them, and against citizens, they having power 
to make any laws they pleased, and they would have placed all 
cases in military courts, and enforce all the laws under military 
courts as the Abolition administration is doing at this time. 
Now, it will be seen, the secessionists first laid down the plat- 
form, and the Abolitionists adopted it ; but the Abolitionists 
say the people of the Southern States went out of the Union. 
President Johnson says they never were out of the Union. I 
say the same. 

For in accordance with the pirovision of the Constitution, they 
had no power to go out, for the Constitution provides that no 
State shall ever have power to pass an ex post facto law — a law 
imparing the obligation of contracts. Now, if a State was to 
go out of the Union it would both be passing s^n ex post facto 
law, and a law imparing the obligation of contracts, for it would 
impair every contract that existed between ourselves and the 
other States, so she could not go out legally. There is another 
reason that a State could not go out of the Union legally. The 
Constitution of the United States, being a fixed, and established 
set of principles, that the people of all the States declared by 
them to be the supreme law of the land, that they all agreed to 
be governed by, and to govern all others by, and not by acts of 
majorities or legislators, and declared that the Constitution 
should be the supreme law of the land, and that every one in 
oflSce, throughout the United States, should be bound by oath, 
or aflSrraation, to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States, notwithstanding any constitution or law in any 
State to the contrary, and that the Union shall be perpetual. 
And imder those fixed, established set of principles they ex- 
tended no authority to any one in office, from the constable to 
the President, but delegated powers. Now, a delegated power 
is not sovereign power, but a business set apart for every one 
to do, who may be elected or appointed into office ; and it is 
not left to his own will whether he will discharge the duty of 
the office which he is elected or appointed to do, but he is 
sworn that he will discharge the duty of the office for which he 
is elected or appointed to do, and that he will support and de- 
fend the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding 
■ 4 



50 

any constitution or law in any State to the contrary. Now, 
that is the oaih required to be taken by the Constitution of the 
United States, and when any one takes an oath to support and 
defend it, it inchides every Avord in the Constitution, not acts 
of legislatures, nor majorities, nor proclamations of the Presi- 
dent, unless it is in accordance with the Constitution of the 
United States. But whenever an officer has discharged the 
duty of the office for which he was elected or appointed, his 
power ceases to go any further ; and if he does act beyond del- 
egated power, his acts are binding on no one, but if such officers 
should insist that they had the right to enforce such acts on the 
citizens, or any one, the citizen has the right to refuse to obey 
such acts, and have the case carried to the Court of the United 
States, and show that no such power was delegated to create 
such laws ; and if no such power ever had been delegated, the 
Court would be bound to pronounce such acts null and void, 
and no law. 

And herein lies the great security of the life, liberty and 
property, and the persons, paj^ers, houses and effects, and not 
the elective franchise. But the elective franchise is good in its 
place, as I will show hereafter. But the great security for our 
rights is, that we have extended no power to any one in office, 
from the constable to the President, but what is expressly 
named. Every provision in the Constitution is a law of protec- 
tion against the acts of wrongs that might be attempted by our 
agents. Now, every power delegated to Congress is expressly 
named, that is, set apart for them to do, and after naming all 
the business set apart for them to legislate upon, the Constitu- 
tion then provides first, that Congress shall have power to make 
all laws necessary and proper to carry out the foregoing law s 
into power. Now, it must be necessary and proper that a law 
should be made, before they have power to make any law. The 
Constitution of the United States provides that the power not 
delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor pro- 
hibited by it to the States, is reserved to States respectively, 
or the people. This shows clearly that Congress has no power 
but what is expressly delegated, and the States have no powers 
that they are prohibited from haying, and as the Constitution 



51 

of the United States provides that no State should ever have 
power to- pass an ex post facto law, nor law imparing the obliga- 
tions of contracts. 

Now, this provision of the Constitution secures and confines 
the action of all the States within the bounds of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, so that they cannot impair any agree- 
ment or contract existing under the Constitution of the United 
States ; and as Congress possesses no power but what is ex- 
pressly delegated, it confines their acts within the bounds of the 
Constitution of the United States ; and no act of either of those 
two legislations, outside of their delegated authority, is binding 
on any officer or citizen of the United States, nor no law, as I 
have shown, but is uttez'ly null and void. But in order to make 
it legally null and void, it would be necessary to have the case 
before the legal arbiter, appointed by the constitutional court, 
who is invested with power to decide in all cases of law and 
equity, arising imder the Constitution ; and this is the course I 
recommend to all the citizens, North and South, to pursue in 
time to come. For you see what dreadful destruction of life, 
liberty and property has been brought on by both North and 
South, and has been forced upon us by the illegal proceedings 
and unconstitutional proceedings of both parties, and by their 
intrigues got the people under military power, and compelled 
us to rob, kill, murder and destroy each other, like we were 
heathens, when we had a plain, simple remedy to settle all dis- 
putes by law. Look at the debi^ that hangs over us, and by 
military proceedings, all over the Southern States, is still in- 
creasing the debt, pretending it was preventing the Southern 
States from insurrection, and to keep them in the Union. My- 
self and the President asserts they never have been out of the 
Union. I will admit that all the acts of the secessionists and 
the Clay party, and abolition administration, was all out of the 
Union. But the territorial boundary, and all the true Union 
men who were, and are willing to conform themselves to all the 
obligations entered into under the Union, cannot be considered 
out of the Union, and each man, South and North, had no legaj 
right to secede from the Union, nor put others out. But let us 
see what position the gecessionists occupied, to go out and drag 



52 

every one out with themselves, and see whether they had any 
authority, or the Abolitionists either, and how they both acted 
tt) get the people under railitaiy power. In the first place, the 
people of the United States divided their government in two 
legislative departments, but each of those departments have 
their business set apart, what they shall legislate upon. The 
Legislature of a State is not responsible to Congress for any act 
they j)ass, neither is Congress responsible for any act they pass, 
to the State, but they must be responsible to some one ; and 
let us see who that is, and if we want to know who it is that 
they are to be responsible to, we must see who created them. 
It was the people created them, and also the Constitution of the 
United States, and bound all of them by oath, or affirmation, to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not- 
withstanding any constitution or law in any State to the con- 
trary. Now, the people created the Constitution and the 
Legislatures, and they are accountable to the people, and no 
one else, and not accountable to one another. Each of them 
have their business set apart to do, and neither of them has 
power to legislate on the business set apart for the other to do. 
Congress has power delegated to legislate on all the national 
aiFairs, but with proper prohibitions and restrictions to their 
limited power. Such as no tax nor duty shall be laid on any 
article exported from any State ; no article shall enter free in 
one port and pay duties in another ; duties shall be uniform 
throughout the United States.'" Then the Legislatures of the 
States — their business set apart to do — are to legislate on all 
the domestic affairs of the States, with proper prohibitions and 
restrictions, to keap them within the proper bounds of their 
legislation. Such as no State shall enter into any treaty or com- 
pact with another State, nor with a foreign power, and many 
other prohibitions and restrictions, so as to confine the State 
legislation within its legislation, set apart for them to legislate 
on. And this is one of the great beauties of our government ; 
for by dividing the legislations into two departments, it dividoa 
.legislation in such manner as it does not fix too much burden 
on any one set of legislators. The legislation can be done in 
harmony and security. The people hare not extended any 



53 

power to any one in office, but delegated powers, and in those 
delegated powers they have given no power to take even the 
vahie of a pin from the people, as I have shown in the first part 
of this work. Now, under these circumstances, how is it possible 
for a State to go out of the Union ? But let us see what sort 
of a plan the secessionists of South Carolina assumed, to have 
the right to go o\it of thp Union, and how they acted. They 
pretended that they had the right to call a convention and de- 
cide for themselves, and choose their own mode and measure of 
redress, and be under no obligation only their own will, not- 
withstanding the Constitution of the United States provided 
that no State should have power to pass an ex post facto law — a 
law imparing the obligation of contracts, and that the Union 
should be perpetual. Now let us see what power is delegated 
to a State Convention. The power delegated to a State Con- 
vention is, they have power to propose amendments to the 
Constitution of their own State, but they have no power to 
make any amendment, nor do any other act that would be 
binding on any one. It requires the consent of two-thirds of 
both Houses to give their consent, but they must advertise 
what they propose, three months previous to the election of 
another set of legislators, and it has to be read three times, on 
three separate days, and agreed to in their first session by two- 
thirds of both Houses. Then, and not until then, it becomes a 
part of the Constitution of the State. Now, that is all the 
power that is delegated to the convention of a State. But, let 
us see how this mob convention in South Carolina did, when a 
few secessionists elected them, and they went down to Colum- 
bia. They assumed to be judges. They decided by themselves, 
and for themselves, against the General Government, and de- 
cided between a people and their own government. They pro- 
nounced the people out of their own government, but, at the 
same time, adopted the original Constitution of the United 
States as the standard of government ; neither did the people 
of the Southern States ever want any other ^government than 
the government under the Constitution of the United States ; 
neither do they want any other rights than is secured to them 
by the Constitution of the United States ; and when they were 



54 

called on by the leaders of secession to organize under military 
organization, it was to defend their homes, their firesides and 
families against the Abolition raiders, who were forming mili- 
tary bands to mm-der and rob, and utterly destroy us, when, at 
the same time, they were bound by the articles of the Union 
that they would support and defend every one who was a mem- 
ber of the Union against all attacks, made against us, or any of us, 
on account of religion, soverignty, trade, or any other pretence 
whatever. This being the case, how could the people be out of 
the Union ? "We have the right to organize ourselves, to pro- 
tect ourselves against illegal bands of robbers, under the au- 
thority of the Constitution, and those who pronounced the peo- 
ple of the Southern States out of the Union, had no power to 
do so, nor the States either ; so, as far as the people of the South- 
ern States are concerned, they never have had any desire, nor 
could go out, unless they would commit treason. Now, I think, 
I have shown very clearly that the President and myself are 
right, when we say that none of the States were out of the 
Union ; because, no one had power to put us out, nor had we 
any legal authority to go out ourselves. For the Constitution 
provided that the Union should be perpetual. If there was but 
one loyal citizen in a State, who was a member of the Union, 
every citizen in the United States, in accordance with the 
agreement, under the Union, is bound to suj^port and defend 
him in every right secured to each other. 

But how does the Abolition party stand, in that respect, to 
the people of the South, under Mr. Lincoln's administration, 
when the secessionists could have no other power in a State 
Convention than to propose amendments, but illegally assumed 
the powers of judges to decide against the General Govern- 
ment, and to decide between the people and their own govern- 
ment, and pronounce them out of their government, and cre- 
ated a new government, and forced the people, under military 
powers, as I have formerly shown ? Now, let us see how Lin- 
coln did. Mr. Lincoln assumes to be a judge, like the seces- 
sionists. He decided that South Carolina was out of the Union. 
He also declared war against South Carolina, and said he wo«Id 
whip South Carolina back into the Union. Now, Mr. Lincoln 



55 

had just about the same right to become a judge to decide 
whether South Carolina was, or was not out of the Union as 
the secessionists had to do what they did, or to declare war 
either. For the Constitution of the United States provides 
that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to 
all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution of 
the United States, in all cases where the United States was a 
party — two or more States — and in all cases where a State was 
a party, the United States Courts would have the original ju- 
risdiction. 

Now, it will be seen that, Mr. Lincoln assumed the place of 
the Judicial Court, and decided against South Carolina by him- 
self, without any court and jury, just like the secessionists did, 
each one of those parties usurping powers not delegated, but 
prohibited each party, in place of calling the courts to their as- 
sistance, called for military power, and in this way, by false re- 
presentation, succeeded in getting a sufficient military power to 
force the whole of the United States to come under their mili- 
tary power. Now, all those things look very much like a con- 
certed plan between them to get the people under military 
power. Now, let us see, in the next j)lace, and examine how 
far Mr. Lincoln's authority extended towards declaring war 
against South Carolina. Now, I wish the reader of this work 
to always bear in mind, that no power has been extended to 
any one in office, from the constable to the President, but del- 
egated powers ; and there is no power given to the President 
to judge or decide any case whatever, and it will be seen that 
his judgment, as far as it went, was a perfect nullity, and with- 
out any legal authority, just like the convention of the seces- 
sionists. Now let us see what the Constitution of the United 
States says in regard to declaring war. The Constitution of 
the United States gives Congress power to declare war and 
make peace between us and foreign powers, but it does not 
give Congress power to declare war against a citizen of the 
United States, nor against a State, because there is a law pro- 
vided to settle all cases of law and equity arising under the 
Constitution ; and in all cases where a State was a party, the 
United States Court had the original jurisdiction. It will be 



56 

seen that Lincoln or Congress had no right to declare war, 
unless the case had been first brought before the United States 
Court, and fairly tried, and if the courts had decided against 
the proceedings of the secessionists, which I have no doubt 
they would, and if the secession party had resisted, by the force 
of arms, it would then have amounted to an insurrection ; then 
Congress would have had a right to put down such an insurrec- 
tion. Now, this is the way the people have been forced under 
these two great leaders of mobs — the one pretending their 
object was to preserve the Union, and the other that they were 
fighting for their liberty and independence, when both parties, 
as I have before shown, were destroying every part of those 
provisions which gave and secured to the people every right, 
liberty and protection any honest man could desire, and en- 
throning themselves with more power than any King, Prince 
or Potentate possesses on earth. And this is what those two 
parties have been after all the while ; and they knew that they 
could not destroy the people's government without dividing 
the people into two parties, nor take their liberty from them, 
unless they got them under military power. To show you the 
wisdom of those two parties, neither of them proceeded against 
each other by law. Now, in the eye of the law, every one is 
to be presumed honest until proved guilty before a court and 
jury. Now, their proceedings were never brought before a 
court and jury, neither has the proceedings of the Abolitionists, 
which would place those parties both as mobs. Now, let us 
see if the Al^olitionists are not as far out of the Union as the 
South could get. We agreed to support and defend each other 
against attacks made against us, or any of us, on account of 
religion, trade or any other pretence whatever, which covered 
every thing that could be thought of or named. Have the 
Abolitionists complied with that agreement? They did not. 
The citizens of each State were to have free ingress and eoress 
to and from any other State, and no duties or restrictions were 
to be laid by any State on the property of the United States, 
or either of them. Did the Abolitionists ever comply with 
that part of the Union ? They did not. The citizens of each 
State were to be secure in their persons, houses and effects 



57 

Did they assist any of the citizens of the Southern States in that 
security or protection? They did not. The Constitution of 
the United States provides that no law or regulation shall be 
made by any State to discharge a servant, or person bound to 
service, due to a citizen of another State ; but if a servant, or 
person bound to service, shall escape or flee to another State, 
they shall be bound to deliver up such servant, or person bound 
to service. Have the Abolitionists complied with that part of 
the Union ? They have not. Does not the Constitution of the 
United States provide that no private property shall be taken 
for public use, without full compensation to the owner ? Have 
the Abolitionists complied with that part of the Union ? They 
have not. Does not the same Constitution provide that the 
military power shall be surbordinate to the civil ? Have they 
complied with that part of the Union ? Have they not used 
the military power in robbing, murdering, taking away and 
destroying all our property, and prohibiting us from the com- 
merce of the whole world? Now, this military power was 
introduced for the protection of every right, liberty and prop- 
erty, against the attacks of all foreign powers and domestic 
violence. But I ask for what purpose those Abolitionists use 
this military power ? .They have dragged many honest men 
from their homes and families, both North and South ! I do 
not blame the people on either side, but I blame the leaders on 
both sides. 

How many poor unfortuaate women have lost their hus- 
bands, and how many parents have lost their sons, who 
might have been, if spared,\a help and stay to them in their 
old age ? And all to gratify the Abolitionists in robbing 
the people of the South of their African property, and pre- 
tending they were preserving the Union, which I have 
shown, in every act they have passed, is destroying every 
part of the Union, just like the secessionists have been do- 
ing. Now, this African property was tried in the Dred 
Scott case, and decided that they were property, and as 
much entitled to protection as any other property in the 
United States. H£\,ve thej complied with the decision of 



58 

that Court? Thej have not. But their acts, in this case, 
are like the rest of their acts of Abolitionism.^ They are 
placing all the power in the Legislatures, and leaving no 
power in the people. For if we establish power as the Ab- 
olitionists have attempted, under the name of amendment, 
to take away one part of our property, what is to hinder 
them to take all the property ? as the Secessionists Conven- 
tion declared they had the right to do. And under their 
regulations with the military and legislative power, they 
claim neither North or South have any security for life, lib- 
erty or property. Look what an immense debt they have 
created over us, and are still increasing ! A heavy debt by 
keeping a standing array ! Our President desires the troops 
dispersed, and, I believe, he is honest, and desires to restore 
the Union to the people in its original purity ; and, I think, 
will do it, if the people will help him. South and North 
he deserves great praise for what he has done in part. He 
brought the war to a close, and is trying to do what he can, 
but the great ignorance of the people, in regard to the plan 
of government, gives the President trouble, and is at great 
disadvantage, but to teach them what is their true interest 
North and South. 

I have written this work in order to assist him in get- 
ting the North and South to throw away those disunion 
parties, and all fall back under the Constitution in its 
original purity. Because you see every principle adopted 
by. Clay, Calhoun and "Webster, all run into the same 
channel to destroy all the provisions of the Constitutions, 
both of the States, and the Constitution of the United 
States, which is the people's government, and enthrone 
all powers over the people, under the control of the 
Legislatures, both of the States, and of the United States, 
as ever has existed under any king, prince or potentate, 
heathen not excepted, and they to be under no obligation, 
only their own will, more than any king, prince or poten- 
tate ; nor neither should they suffer themselves, under any 



59 

other obligation. Now. this is their own language, which 
proves that I have made no false charge against thein. l^ow, 
those three men, Clay, Calhoun and Webster, were all law- 
yers, and men of great intellect. How is it possible that 
they could have overlooked the true principles of the Con- 
stitution and adopted principles so opposite to those of the 
Constitution, as I have described, unless they had sonie 
other object in view to what they professed to the people? 
And let ns look somewhat further into their principles, and 
see what kind of government their principles would natu- 
rally force us under, for you see, under the Calhoun plat- 
form, under the ordinance of 1832, they would not admit of 
any allegiance to any other than the State, and those 
the State transferred their allegiance to. Kow, from this 
remark, it would seem that this was not the kind of govern- 
ment they intended to remain under, or they would not 
have been so careful to have provided for a transfer.. Now, 
let us look and see what kind of e"overnment it could make, 
in accordance with Mr. Calhoun's platform. Each State 
was to be a separate State, under no obligation, only their 
own will, more than any king, prince, or potentate, neither 
should they suffer themselves under any other, and they ap- 
plied the word State to mean the Legislatures. They asked 
the question, who created, and who can destroy the govern- 
ment? Is it the States or the people? They answer the 
question in the address accompanying the ordinances them- 
selves. The States, they say, ratified the compact. The 
people of the United States had no agency in tile formation 
of the government. That there is not now, nor has there 
ever been, such a political body as the people of the United 
States. The extent of the power does not depend on the 
people, but upon the State Legislatures ; that they have the 
absolute control over both the lives, liberty and property of 
the people ; that they have the clear right to declare the ex- 
tent of their oblig4ion, and, when once declared, the people 
had no course but to obey. But if they refuse obedience, 



60 

so as to bring themselves under the severe pains and penal- 
ties, by which their high and sovereign power, the Legisla- 
ture, will not fail to provide foi their self-defence. The fault 
and folly will be their own. Each State has a right to de- 
cide for herself, and choose her own mode and measure of 
defence ; and that there could not be found any lawful arbi- 
ter sufficiently impartial enough to decide against them. 
Therefore, there was none provided. Now, you will see 
this is the power claimed by Mr. Calhoun's platform, for the 
Legislatures of each State. Now, let us carry out Mr. Cal- 
houn's platform, and see what kind of a government it will 
make, and perhaps we can see what those three parties have 
been after all tliis time. We will, in the first place, estab- 
lish all the powers in the hands of the Legislatures, contend- 
ed for, under the Calhoun platform, and we will say each 
State is a separate, sovereign State, with all the powers over 
the people claimed, and they under no obligation, only their 
own will, with all the powers claimed, this would establish 
as many separate governments as there were States in the 
United States, all under no obligation, only their own will. 
Now, if they were under no obligations than their own will, 
there could not be any agreement existing between those 
different governments and if no agreement existed, no 
Union could exist ; so, you see, Calhoun's platform of gov- 
ernment destroys the people's government out of existence 
as completely as if it never had existed, and placed us under 
the form of government that all heathens act under. Every 
heathen chieftain controls a certain territorial boundary, and 
is under no other obligation, than his own will ; and all 
heathens are controlled by self-gratification. The}^ care not 
how much others may sufi'er, so that they are gratified. We 
will establish Mr. Calhoun's States Eight sovereignty, and 
examine it a little further. We will suppose that Georgia 
and South Carolina are two separate governments, under no 
obligation, only their own will, and will not suffer them- 
selves to be under any other; and we* will suppose, which 



61 

will be a very reasonable supposition, that a parcel of rogues 
shall settle on both sides of Savannah river, and cross the 
river and steal horses, or any other property ; the only way 
we would have to get any redress for the wrongs done us 
would be to apply to the Legislature of the State to call on 
the government of Georgia for redress, for the wrongs done ; 
but we would, in the first place, have to obtain positive 
proof that it was a citizen of Georgia that had committed 
the trespass, whether stealing, murder, or robbery, you 
would, perhaps, have to take with you friends to obtain that 
fact ; but while you were attempting to obtain those facts, 
so as to be prepared to give satisfactory proof that it was a 
citizen of Georgia had done you the injury complained of, 
they might privately tell you, or your friends, who went 
with you, or both ; but we will suppose you succeed in get- 
ting all the proof necessary to satisfy those separate States 
Rights sovereigns, that you are claiming but what is right, 
and they apply to the government of Georgia to redress the 
wrongs done by a citizen of Georgia, to a citizen of the 
sovereign State of South Carolina. Suppose the govern- 
ment of Georgia sends back word we are under no obliga- 
tion than our own will, we are not bound to protect you 
against theft and robbery or murder. Protect yourselves. 
What kind of a government is this they are trying to bring 
us under ? What kind of security could the people have 
under such a government ? For has South Carolina sufficient 
military power to force Georgia to respect our rights ? Do 
the people not see what destruction of life, liberty and 
property would occur under such a gov(3rnment as that ? 
But we would be in the very same fix that the heathen gov- 
ernments are, and soon destroy each other, and in all proba- 
bility become heathens ourselves, under such a form of gov- 
ernment. But all those difficulties were fixed for, to bring 
us under the kind of government they intended to bring the 
people under, by those three parties, or I am mistaken ; if 
I am, I wish to be undeceived. But let us look a little fur- 



62 

tlier, and as the address accompanying the ordinance of 1832, 
provides that thej would not admit ot any allegiance but to 
the Legislatures, and those they transferred their allegiance 
to. Let us see what kind of a government they are making, 
that will make it necessary to make a transfer of allegiance 
from the State. We will go on and establish as many gov- 
ernments in the United States as there are States, all under 
no obligation only their own ^^ill. Let us see hoT/ com- 
merce is to be extended to all those different governments if 
South Carolina was acknowledged as a separate, independent 
government. She could enter into treaties and compacts with 
other governments, to carry on commerce with other na- 
tions, because she has ports to send goods out and receive 
goods in, but there is Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, 
Missouri, and all the back States — they could not enter into 
any treaty or compact with any other government, for they 
had no ports to send goods out nor receive goods in. 
Therefore, they could not enter into commerce with any 
other government. And all the other States preserved the 
principles laid down by Mr. Calhoun, to be under no obli- 
gations only their own will, neither should they suffer them- 
selves to be under any other. Kow, let us see how this de- 
fect can be remedied so as to extend commerce to all those 
different States. There are only three ways that I know of? 
by which commerce is extended between different govern- 
ments. One is under the authority of Kings, another is an 
Emperor, and the third is under the authority of a republi- 
can form of government like ours. Now, to preserve those 
separate sovereignties, there is but one way it can be done, 
and that is to make a King in every State, and an Emperor, 
and extend commerce to all the different governments, 
through an Emperor. Now, it is impossible for any other 
kind of government to be formed out of their platform of 
government. 

Now, it will be recollected Mr. Calhoun observed, under 
the working of those parties, we would be obliged to come 



63 

under a monarcliical government of some kind or other, and 
that no constitution had ever been created worthy- of the 
name, and he doubted if there ever would be one ; but he, 
at the same time, applauded monarchical governments very 
much. Now, as I have shown that Mr, Calhoun's platform 
of government could do nothing else but to destroy the gov- 
ernment of the people, and bring us imder the worst of 
monarchical governments on earth. I do not know of any 
one that had a better right to know that the workings of 
those party principles would bring us under a monarchical 
government, than Mr. Calhoun, who had created them for 
the express purpose, or he must have labored under great 
error. Now you see, at the commencement of the war, cot- 
ton was the great king, that would bring everybody to our 
assistance ; but king cotton died, and no one came to our 
assistance, but king emergency Came and took king cotton's 
place, and forced everybody and all the property into the 
hands of the military power. And just so if we establish 
those separate States Rights governments, king emergency 
will cause us to make kings in every State, and then emer- 
gencies will require us to make an Emperor, so that we can 
extend commerce to every government, ports or no ports. 
Tlien king emergency will require us to be taxed to build 
palaces for the Emperor, and all the different kings to live 
in ; and emergencies will require us to be taxed to furnish 
princely fortunes for each king and emperor to live in 
princely royalty and grandeur every year. We will also 
be taxed to keep up a great many royal officers to carry on 
their royal governments. We will also be taxed to keep up 
a standing army, to keep the people from insurrection against 
them. We will be taxed to pay all the necessary wants of 
government besides. Tliose taxes will be so numerous that 
the people cannot live and pay them. They will then sell 
the people's land for taxes, and appoint agents to buy in the 
peoples land for the government, as they will call it, and 
they will settle and fix the landed property in certain lords, 



64 

like they do in other monarchical governments , and if the 
Legislatures are placed in such power as all these three 
parties have claimed, and are now acting on, and carrying 
out under Lincoln's abolition administration, and amending 
the Constitution to give them power to carry out these pow- 
ers and fix the powers in legislators and Congress, to eman- 
cipate one part of our property, what would hinder them to 
emancipate and take any kind of property we have ? Now, 
this is establishing a government of robbery in place of a 
government of protection. Now, under such a system of 
government could any one, who is a member of this govern- 
ment, North or South, have any security for either life, 
liberty or property? There would be no foundation for 
them to establish any security on. All would have to de- 
pend on the will of the Legislature, and if you disputed their 
authority, and they would take every thing from you, they 
■would decide for themselves, and choose their own mode 
and measure of redress ; and if you brought yourselves un- 
der the displeasure of your only and lawful sovereign, and 
within the severe pains and penalties by which their high 
and sovereign power, the legislatures, would not fail to pro- 
vide in their self-defence, the fault and folly would be their 
own. This language applies to the principles of Calhoun's 
platform, yet it equally applies to the principles of the abo- 
lition party, for they have refused to comply with every 
obligation entered into under the Constitution, and created 
laws, by acts of the Legislatures, both by the State, and now 
in the Congress of the United States, right in opposition to 
the laws of the Constitution, and have used the military 
power which was created for the purpose of supporting civil 
law, and in place of applying the military law to protect 
the civil law, applied it in robbing, murdering and destroy- 
ing the people, when both oath and duty, and the law of the 
Union, would bind them to protect each member of the 
Union. Now, if the people, North or South, encourages 
this power to bo fixed in the Legislatures, and they under 



65 

no obligation only their will, and they decide for themselves, 
as they have done, and choose their own mode and measure 
of redress over the people, what will hinder them from 
establishing such a government over us as I have described ? 
And I defy and challenge the world to show that any other 
kind of government can be created out of their principles. 
jSTow, I wish to show the people the great necessity of resist- 
ing this power immediately, and in what way to resist it 
successfully and easily. 

First. I will endeavor to show the great reason this ille- 
gal and unconstitutional principle should be protested 
against, claimed by legislators as sovereign powers, when, 
under the authority of the Constitution, they possess no 
powers but delegated, and all other powers not delegated, 
are expressly proliibited, which is the only way legislation, 
can be confined within its proper bounds. But suppose we 
change our government, and let the legislators be under no 
obligation, only their own will. They could create any kind 
of government over us they pleased, and we will suppose 
that it is their object to create a King in every State, and 
an Emperor, it would be one of the strongest in the world, 
and the hardest to resist their power. We will suppose one 
State could succeed in forming an insurrection against the 
usurped King of a State, in order to sustain their original 
rights, secured to them under the Constitution, the Emper- 
or would send armies to help to sustain the King in power 
over the people, and crush the people of the State imme- 
diately ; so they never could have it in their power to get 
out from under the power of those monarchs. Now, this is 
tlie reason why I say the people have no time to lose to be- 
gin to act in their defence, for they have gained two very 
important points over the people, in order to carry out all 
those powers over the people. One is in getting the people 
divided into two parties, and the other is in getting the mil- 
itary power in their own hands, and the people, without 
any leader to direct or guide them in what is right or wrong, 
5 



and the Radicals, as tliey are called, are trying to keep the 
people divided by their threats of still inflicting further in- 
juries on the South, and enforcing the military power over 
the people. But is this military power not over the North 
as well as the South ? Do not the Northern people have 
to furnish the men to keep up this military force, and are not 
the Northern people under the wink and nod of their mili- 
tary chieftains ? Did not the Northern troops believe all 
they were fighting for was to get the people of the South to 
go back into the Union ? But when the South agreed to go 
back into the Union they would not consent. They should 
not go back unless they would take an oath to support and 
defend the Constitution of the United States, and all acts 
passed by Congress, and all proclamations of the President, 
and the emancipation of their African property, notwith- 
standing no power has ever been delegated, by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, to any power or powers on earth 
to require any other oath than that of the Constitution it- 
self. Is this not carrying the power, as fast as it can, into 
the hands of the legislatures and oflicers, and from the peo- 
ple? The people and officers took all the oaths they re- 
quired in order to get back in the Union, for they were 
forced to do so by military threats, and, by doing so, were 
promised pardon and admittance, back under the Union. 
Now, if I understand the meaning of pardon, it means the 
acquittal of the offence they are charged with, in every 
sense. But, after all this, they would not admit them into 
the Union ; but add and fix a great many other terms 
that- must be complied with, before they will admit them in 
the Union. Now, you will examine the Constitution of the 
United States ; it gives Congress no power to fix the terms 
that a State shall come into the Union. The Constitution 
fixes the terms that a State shall come into the Union itself. 
Every State that comes into the Union, has to come in under 
the same Agreement all the rest came in under. The oSicers 
of every State in the United States had to take an oath to 



67 

support and defend tlie Constitution of the United States, 
notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
contrary. Now, this shows that every State has to come 
into the Union under the same agreement the rest did, and 
also the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
State shall have power to pass an ex post facto laio, a law 
imparing the obligation of contracts. This shows clearly 
their object is to destroy the Union, and not preserve it. 
Now, this shows the Constitution of the United States has 
fixed the terms itself, and that Legislatures of Congress or 
the Legislatures of States, neither of them have any power, 
under the authority of the Constitution, to fix any terms at 
all. All the power any of them have is to conform to the 
principles fixed and established in the Constitution of the 
United States. So you will see that every principle adopted 
by the Abolition administration is right in opposition to the 
principles adopted by the Constitution; and, in accordance 
with the secession principles of Calhoun, and, if adopted 
and established, would leave it in the power of the legisla- 
tors to rob every member of such a Union as they ofter to 
the people to come under. Now, I will not class the people 
of the North or the people of the South with the leaders of 
the North and South, for they must be innocent of any bad 
designs or bad intentions, for every principle adopted by 
the leaders of those parties was strictly against the people's 
interests, and all good, honest men's interests, none of whom 
could be benefitted, but utterly destroyed. 

But let us see, in the fir^t place, what great crime the South 
has done, that they deserve this great wrath on the part of the 
Abolitionists. The legislative members of the Southern States, 
either in the States, nor in Congress, neither of them have 
passed any acts, nor attempted to pass any acts, that would de- 
prive any citizen of the Northern States of any right secured to 
them in their States, nor anywhere in the United States ; neither 
did they vote for any one for that purpose ; but as far as my 
knowledge goes, they complied with every obligation they had 
entered into to the United States. But how does it stand be- 



68 

tween the North and South ? HaA'e they not refused to com- 
ply with every obligation they have entered into with the 
South? Did not the Constitution secure the right to every 
citizen of the United States, to have free ingress and egress into 
any other State, and take his property with him, and that no 
duties or restrictions should be laid by any State on the prop- 
erty of the United States, or either of them? Now, they 
passed acts by the Legislatures that the Southern people should 
not take their property into their State, and they passed duties 
and restrictions that if we moved into their States, they would 
rob us of our African property. Now, we ownecl no other 
property but what kind of properly we owned when we went 
into the Union. The agreement, under the Constitution was, 
that no law or regulation should be made by any State to dis- 
charge a servant, or person bound to service, due to a citizen 
of another State ; but if a servant, or person bound to service, 
shall escape and flee from one State to another State, they shall 
be bound to deliver such servant, or person bound to service, 
to the proper owner. Now, they did not only forget the obli- 
<yation of their oath to comply with that obligation, but they 
created laws that if a servant, or person bound to service, should 
escape and flee to their State, they should be free, and if any 
one attempted to rescue such servant, or person bound to ser- 
vice, or if any one should aid or assist in delivering such ser- 
vant to his owner, they should be find and imprisoned to a large 
extent. Also, they passed laws that a State coming out of a 
Territory, that the people of the Territory, by their majorities, 
had the right to prevent the owners of African property should 
not be permitted to move into their State with the restriction 
that they should be robbed of their African property, when the 
Territory belonged as much to the slave owner as any one else. 
Now, this was laying duties on the property of the Southern- 
ers, right in opposition to the laws of the Constitution. 

Now, Avhen the people of the South had remonstrated against 
their illegal and unconstitutional proceedings, and they still re- 
fused to comply, the South told them that they would separate 
themselves from them as long as they were unwilling to comply 
with the terms of the Union, and have a government of their 



69 

own. But they would not consent for us to quit them ; but, in 
place of agreeing to comply with the terms of the Union, they 
would rob us as much as they pleased, by acts of Legislatures. 
Now, the people of the South were taught by the secessionists 
that they had the right, under the Constitution, by acts of ma- 
jorities, to dispossess us of every thing we possessed. N'ow, 
under those circumstances, is it any wonder that the people of 
the South would wish to separate themselves from a people that 
were bound, by a firm league of friendship, to support and de- 
fend each other against all attacks made against us on account 
of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any pretence whatever, and 
they bound by their honor and oath to do so, and they robbing 
and depriving us of every right secured to us under the Consti- 
tution of the United States? Is it any wonder that such a 
course pursued by the Abolitionists, 'that the citizens of the 
Southern States should wish, or be easily persuaded, to withdraw 
themselves from the Abolitionists ? Now, all this looks as a 
concerted plan, on both the secessionists and Abolitionists, in 
order to get the people under military power, for the Cincinnati 
Convention, the Calhoun platform, declared that it should not 
be denied but that a State had the right to emancipate. Now, 
all those who went to the Convention were lawyers, and the 
people believed they knew the character and principles of the 
Constitution, and by such statements being made to them that 
they had no way to escape the robbery that was offered but to 

go out of the Union. They never told the people that there 
was a lawful arbiter appointed, by which they could be pro- 
tected against acts of Legislatures, but told the people there 
was no one could be found sufficiently impartial to decide 
against acts of Legislatures, and that none were appointed. 
That each of the State Legislatures had thg right to decide for 
themselves and choose their own mode and measure of redress. 
Therefore, there was no other way to get clear of the robbery 
threatened by the Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists performed 
their part in destroying the Union, still threatening they would 
continue their robber.y. Now take into consideration the great 
ignorance of the people North and South. The people cannot 
be to blame, because by false statements and false representa- 



70 

tions they got the people divided into parties, and by that 
means got them under military power. Now, one of those 
parties could not have got the people under military power 
by themselves. It took both of them to do it. The secession- 
ists told the people their remedy was a peaceable remedy. 
Some of those head parties went so far as to say they would 
drink all the blood that would be shed in the conflict for a 
breakfast dram. But, like many other promises, have never 
been done. This promise was made, but like the story of the 
babes of the woods, uever fulfilled. Many promises were made 
to the people. We were to become the richest people in the 
world, if we would only go out of the Union ; but I never be- 
lieved one word they said. I understood the character of our 
government, and I knew if the South or North left the Union 
we would be the worst destroyed people the sun ever shone 
upon ; and that to go out of the Union was only to relinquish 
every right, liberty or protection, already secured to us under 
the government established by ourselves, and place ourselves 
under the control of legislative power, and leave them under 
no obligation only their own will, without any check or chance 
to resist them ; but to more fully deceive us, those two parties 
both pretended they were preserving the Union. Is it possible 
that a Union could be preserved by one party robbing another 
party ? . Is it possible, that by robbing the minority, it would 
make them love you? And was not our Union based on a 
league of friendship ? "What is better to secure friendship than 
to comply with all the agreements they enter into with each 
other ? 

Now, as I leave the people free from blame, so far as they 
are concerned, and as they have both sides been deceived by 
the leaders of both parties, and dragged out of the Union, and 
forced under one of the most cruel monarchical governments on 
earth, as I have shown. My advice is, let the people at once, 
with one accord, throw away all those parties, and all go back 
into the Union in its original purity, and restore back all prop- 
erty taken from the people on both sides,, and make restoration 
for all wrongs that can be done, and by so doing, we will not 
only renew our lost Union, destroyed by those designing par- 



71 

ties, but we will renew that union of love between each one 
that ought to have existed, and without which no Union can 
exist ; and let us forgive one another as fully as if no wrong had 
been done, and all who will join in making peace, and in har- 
monizing and making and doing justice, let him have done what 
he may before, let all his faults be forgiven, and no more named. 
Let him be received like the father received his prodigal son, 
with love and friendship ; but, at the same time, I would recom- 
mend the people to join everywhere and agree not to elect any 
one in office who did not acknowledge his error and bind him- 
self to support the principles of the Constitution in its original 
purity, as I have described, for this is one way we can throw 
all those designing parties out of office, who have laid the foun- 
dation for the destruction of our government. The other plan 
I will recommend to protect ourselves against those usurpers of 
power over the rights of the people, is to go into the Courts of 
the United States, and there show that all their acts of robbery 
and destruction of life, liberty and property have been done with- 
out any legal authority. That no such acts as they have passed 
hare ever been delegated, but on the contrary, are expressly 
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, which ia 
all the Union that does, or ever has existed, and have their acts 
and illegal proceedings pronounced null and void by the legal 
arbiters. This is the course, and the only and legal course, any 
one is authorized by the constituted authority of the people, 
and no other course should ever have been pursued. Now, if 
the people will all adopt this course, they will soon get from 
under this military power. Now, the North is under military 
power as much as the South, and they are no more secure in 
their rights than the South ; for if they can rob the South, what 
is to hinder them from robbing the North ? 

Now, it is necessary to show them where their danger lies. 
"We will suppose that I am not mistaken in my opinion what 
kind of a government the head leaders of those parties intend- 
ed to bring the people under. After they got the government 
of the people destroyed, let us see if there are any classes of 
people in our country that could be benefitted by the destruc- 
tion of life, liberty and property, that has occurred, if they 



72 

should really succeed in establishing a King in every State, and 
an Emperor who would fill all those royal offices ? Would it 
not be the lawyers who advised us to pursue all the plans and 
courses we have pursued ? Was it not the lawyers ? Recol- 
lect, Calhoun was a lawyer, Webster was a lawyer, and Clay 
was a lawyer. Now, if we create an Emperor, a lawyer would 
fill the office, and have a palace buUt at the people's expense, 
and he could fix a tax on us to pay princely fortunes for him, 
to live in princely royalty every year. He, like all other mon- 
archs, would have to keep a life guard all the time, and a large 
standing army all the time, to prevent insurrection. If we have 
a King in every State, who would fill the office of a King ? It 
would be lawyers who would fill all the royal offices, to carry 
on all those royal governments. It would be lawyers, and who 
would be obliged to pay all the taxes to keep up all those royal 
officers in royalty and grandeur. It would be the people, black 
and white, and they would have to keep up large standing ar- 
mies to keep the people from insurrection. They would tax 
the people to feed and clothe, and furnish arms and ammuni- 
tion, all to keep us in bondage. Then there would be no one 
free, black nor white. Then they will tax us so high we cannot 
pay our taxes, and live. They will then sell our lands, and 
appoint agents to buy it in for the government, as they will call 
it, and divide all the land to some of the heads of departments. 
Establish a set of landlords over the people, and make the peo- 
ple pay rent for their own land. 

Now, this is the true situation they are trying to bring the 
people under. See what power they claim at this time, under 
the name of the Civil Rights Bill. They assume the power to 
make all persons citizens of the United States, without any 
qualifications whatever. Now, where has there been any power 
delegated to Congress to create citizens by any other plan than 
that laid down by the Constitution ? If no power has been 
delegated, no power exists on their part. Who are making all 
those unconstitutional laws ? It is the lawyers. In the first 
place, they had no power delegated to them to take from the 
people their African property, but were expressly prohibited by 
the Constitution ; neither have they any power to give them 



73 

the right of citizenship ; neither have they a right to legislate 
on any of the domestic affairs of the people of any State, their 
legislative power is confined to the national affairs, and is well 
confined by prohibitions and restrictions, and is the only busi- 
ness set apart for them to do. All this military power and 
legislation they assume over the domestic affairs of the States, 
like the rest of their legislation, are usurped powers, with- 
out one shadow of constitutional authority. For the Constitu- 
tion provides, the powers not delegated to the United States 
by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States, is reserved to 
the States, respectively, or the people. Now, there is no power 
delegated to the United States in Congress, but the national 
affairs, and the business set apart for the States to legislate on 
is the domestic affairs of the State, and neither of those two 
legislative bodies have any power or authority to legislate on 
the business set apart for either of them to do. Any attempt 
to do so is usurped powers, and unconstitutional. 

Neither is their act called Amendment, constitutional. It is* 
unconstitutional. In two respects the Constitution provides 
that amendments may be made only. Now, amendments do 
not mean to destroy the original, but to make it stronger and 
better, and if it is an amendment it must accord with the origi- 
nal, or cannot become a part of the Constitution. The Consti- 
tution provides that no private property shall be taken for pub- 
lic use without full compensation to the owner. It also provides 
that the military shall be subordinate to the civil. 

Now, this so-called amendment would destroy one of the 
most important parts of the Constitution, and does not accord 
with the balance of the Constitution in place of protection 
against all attacks made against us, or any of us, on any account 
whatever. It is giving Congress power to rob us, and in place 
of using the military power to protect us in our civil rights, 
they are using it to rob us. In case of amendments being 
made, the Constitution provides that no State, without its con- 
sent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Now, 
when this so-called amendment was passed, a large number of 
the States were, by Congress, denied any representation, both 
in the Senate, or any other place. Now, all those acts have 



74 

been passed by lawyers. Now, you see, this Congress, under 
Lincoln's administration, is all this time usurping all the powers 
over the domestic affairs of the States, and is assuming all 
powers over the domestic affairs of the States, and pretends 
they are protecting the Union, both of the people North and 
South. You may see clearly that they are trying to utterly 
destroy it, and keep the South out of the Union ; and, by so 
doing, to retain military power over the people after the people 
took the oath they required, and the President pardoned them, 
in order that the people of the South could take their place in 
the Union. They would not consent to receive them into the 
Union, but passed acts that no one, who was elected by the 
people of the South, should be permitted to take a seat in Con- 
gress, unless he would swear that he had not held an office in 
the war, under the Confederate, army, or sympathized with 
those of the rebellion. An oath they knew no honest or good 
man would take, and, in that way, are keeping them out of the 
, Union, when they pretended to the people, in time of the war, 
they were calling on them to fight to preserve the Union. 

Again, during the war, they never made any proposition to 
the South they could have accepted of. They never offered 
any other terms but to rob us as much as they pleased. I have 
not written this in justification of the rebellion, but I have 
written this in justification of the charge I made against the 
Abolition administration, and the head secessionists, and show • 
why I still suspect them, and put all the honest people on their 
watch, and guard. North and South. I am as much a friend to 
one as the other, if they do right, and I consider the one in as 
much danger of being destroyed as the other. They have be- 
gun on the South first, because they were the fewest in number. 
I will call the attention of the people of the United States to a 
proposed amendment, dated April 2Sth, 1866, agreed to by 
twelve against three, that until the 4th of July, 1870, all per- 
sons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it 
aid or comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for 
members of Congress and electors for the President and Vice 
President. They provided, also, that Congress shall have power 



ro 



to enforce, by an appropriate legislation, the provisions of this ar- 
ticle. 

I will call the attention of the people of the ITnited States 
to the proposed amendment of the third and fifth amendments ; 
the third amendment proposed, would exclude every member 
of the Union of the Southern States from sending a member 
to Congress of the United States, unless they would swear a 
positive lie, because every honest man in the Southern States, 
who believed that they were only resisting the robbery, and 
attempts on the part of the mobs and raids of the Abolition- 
ists, and believed that the Abolitionists had left them no other 
way, after they declared war against them, to protect their 
homes and families, but to fight. 

Who could help but to sympathise, for the distress was 
brought on all the Union men of the South and North, by the 
abolition robbery. Now, they are not satisfied with the rob- 
bery and murder brought about by their unconstitutional pro- 
ceedings against the South and their own people, but are trying 
to pass every law they can, to prevent and destroy the Union, 
for those amendments they propose to make, would deprive the 
people of having any representation in Congress ; and this would 
prevent any of the Southern States coming in under the Con- 
stitution of the United States. Then the fifth proposition is by 
the way of amendments, that Congress shall have power to en- 
force, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article- 
Now you will see that the object of the third proposed amend- 
ment is to prevent the Southern States to come into the Union, 
that they can have some excuse to keep up the military power 
over the people ; and the fifth proposed amendment is to in- 
crease power in Congress, under the excuse to prevent insur- 
rection on the part of the South. Why should the Abolition- 
ists be afraid of the South insurrecting against them ? Have 
they done any wrong to the South ? Have they been robbing 
them, destroying their homes, firesides, and their families ? If 
they have not, I will guarantee and insure them against all 
damages from the South ; but I will go further, if they will fall 
back under the Constitution of the United States in its original 
purity, and comply with all the obligations entered into, in fu- 



76 

ture they will forgive you. For the people of the Soiith desire 
nothing more than their rights, secured under the Constitution, 
in its original purity, but to go back under the Abolition rob- 
bing government. 

I have no desire myself to go, for is not the abolition princi- 
ple a destroyer of the Union, and all rights secured under it ? 
And in place of protecting the people. North and South, are 
fixing the power in the Legislatures, both in State and Con- 
gress, to rob the people, from one end of the Union to the 
other. You may, from what I have shown, clearly see that 
their principles and the secessionists, and compromisors, and 
separate State sovereignty, all transfers the power from the 
. people and their Constitution into the Legislatures. No other 
power has ever been attempted by either. Now, I must ac- 
knowledge that I have no sympathy for the destroyers of the 
Constitution ; but I have great sympathy for the people, both 
North and South, who have been so cruelly deceived and mis- 
led by false representations and false instructions, Avhich misled 
thousands on thousands of our best and wisest men astray, and 
assisted in carrying on all this destruction of life and property, 
now so plainly to be seen. Bat suppose I should become more 
liberal, and come to the conclusion that all that ever has been 
brought upon us has been done by an error of the head and not 
of the heart, and that all parties, of their own accord, should 
come out frankly and acknowledge their error, and all be wil- 
ling to fall back uader the Constitution in its original purity 
what joy and happiness would reign all over the United States 
of America ! But should this not be the case, ray prayers are 
that the people will think for themselves, and act for their own 
interest, and all agree to vote for no Abolitionist, no advo- 
cate of settling disputes by compromises of Lsglslatures, in 
place of a court and jury, and they to be sworn to decide in ac- 
cordance with the Constitution of the United States, and vote 
for no one who advocates secession, no separate State Right 
sovereignty, for there is no sovereign in the United States, but 
the people and their Constitution, that being the supi-eme law, 
of the land, and the expressed will of the people. 

But now, as I have shown, no one could be proSted by 



77 

this destruction of life, liberty and property, but the lawyers ; 
and also, that it has been by their counsel we have been misled, 
yet I feel it to be my duty to do them justice, as a part of our 
community. I believe that there are as many honest, upright, 
just, and as trustworthy men, according to their number, as any 
class of people in our country, and as useful members in society, 
and as much needed as any other member of our Union. There- 
fore, I do not wish to be understood to mean, by what I have 
written, not to elect laAvyers, for I believe there are as many 
honest lawyers, according to their number, as any class of 
the people. But I wish to be understood to say, elect no one, 
lawyer or no lawyers, until they will agree to oppose those 
principles I have described. And in that way, you will get 
all those designers out of office, that are destroying the govern- 
ment of the people and transferring all power to the Legisla- 
tures, any King, Prince or Potentate ever possessed over the 
people, as I have shown, and elect such men as will do away 
with military armies, and send the soldiers home to their fami- 
lies and friends, where they ought to have been all this time. 

Now, this is the government that Lincoln and his party have 
thrown away, and Jeff. Davis and his party have done the same, 
and both parties have adopted, in its stead, what they call, se- 
parate States Rights sovereignty. Davis and his party pretend 
to be resisting Abolitionism under States Rights sovereignty 
or secession, when every principle adopted by the (so-called) 
States Rights Conventions, establishes Abolition principles as 
strongly as language or words can express them. But as I 
have shown the true principles of the Constitution, and the ob- 
ject for which they were created, I will endeavor to show the 
true principles of separate States sovereignty, and the object 
for Avhich they were created. I will not be governed by what 
I hear in speeches or newspapers, nor by words used by the 
framers of this States Rights party, but I go to the Conven- 
tions, where they laid doAvn their platforms, and see what princi- 
ples they have been attempting to carry out and establish over 
the people. In the first Convention, in 1832, and in the second, 
in Cincinnati, and in the third, in Charleston, all the said, or 
pretended Democrats, North and South, met ; and, not coming 



to a proper agreement, appointed another meeting elsewhere. 
But it matters not so much, tvhen or xvhere they met, as what 
they adopted, as the standard principles of their government as 
a States Rights secession government. I will call the attention 
of the people to acts passed in their Convention of 1832. Now, 
it is my object to show the people that their object in creating 
this State Rights secession principle was to destroy every right, 
and, if established, would destroy every right, liberty and 
privilege, guaranteed and secured to the people under the 
Constitution, (as I have shown,) and would establish power 

in the Legislature, not only to emancipate the African property, 
but life, liberty and all the property of the people. Instead of 
their being secure in their jaapers, persons, houses and effects as 
the Constitution provides, they would not be secure in any- 
thing. And, according to the provisions of those principles, 
created in, and by those Conventions, the Legislatures have 
the power secured to them, to take everything from the people, 
being imder no obligation but their own will, and the people 
havilig no course but to obey. For, in these prmciples 
they have left no check on, or against, acts of legisla- 
tion, or acts of majorities, as is provided in the Constitu- 
tion of- the United States. Their princi})les would destroy 
every right, liberty or privilege guaranteed to the people, and 
would transfer all the power to the Legislatures that ever any 
king, prince or potentate ever had on earth, not excepting the 
African chief, who kills whom he pleases, eats whom he pleases, 
takes from whom he pleases, and gives to whom he pleases. 
They explain the word State to mean the Legislature of the 
State. The addresses, accompanying the ordinance, provides 
that there is not now, nor ever has been, such a political body 
as the people of the United States. The extent of the j^ower 
does not depend on the people, but ujion the State Legisla- 
tures, and they are under no obligation, only their own will, just 
as any king, prince or potentate. 

They have the absolute control over the lives, liberty and 
property of the people — the clear right to declare the extent of 
their obligations, and, when once declared, the people have no 

course but to obey ; and if they refuse obedience, the Legisla- 



79 

ture, in their high and sovereign capacity, will not fail to pro- 
vide for her self-defence — the fault and folly will be their own. 
The self-defence, put up by all who claim the right of sove- 
reignty over the people, as this States Rights secession has done, 
is, to make the penalty death, if you speak against, or resist 
the laws they established. 

Now, under the States Rights sovereignty, they provide 
that the Legislature should have power, from time to time, to 
prescribe what oath of allegiance officers and citizens should 
take, and also define what should constitute treason against the 
State, and the penalty annexed to treason. They defined trea- 
son to be, speaking against any act passed by the Legislature, 
or resisting it in any way or manner whatever — the penalty 
should be death, without the benefit of the clergy, which means, 
without any chance to be reprieved. 

They provided that, in no case wherein was called in question 
the authority of this ordinance, or any act of the Legislature, in 
pursuance ©f the same, should an appeal, or copy of an appeal, 
be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any 
person attempting 'to take an appeal, or copy of an appeal » 
should be dealt with in the same manner as for contempt of 
court. This was done to secure to the Legislature the power 
over the lives, liberty and property of the people, under the 
pretence that their object was to protect the people against an 
oppressive tariff, and give to them free trade ; and we are now 
beginning to see what kind of free trade they are giving us. 
The Constitution of the United States gave us as free trade as 
could be given by any government. It provides that no tax or 
duty shall be paid on any article exported from any State. 
They went further to secure the power to the Legislatures of 
the States over the people. They provided that, in no case in 
which was called in question the authority of the ordinance, or 
any act of the Legislatures of the States, should any judge or 
jury be permitted to sit on trial, xmless they would first take an 
oath, well and truly to obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, 
and whatever act the Legislature should pass, to the full extent 
and meaning of the same. They provided that there should be 
no appeal from the decision of a court-martial. This would 



80 

place the military law above the civil law ia time of peace — 
whereas, the Constitution of the United States provides that 
the military law shall be subordinate to the civil law. Now, 
since there is no appeal from the military court, this establishes 
the military law above the civil law, and the Legislatures being 
bound by no oath, and under no obligation but their own will, 
could pass any act they pleased, and the penalty to be inflicted 
on the military courts for disobedience, and enforce any law 
they pleased. They also provided that all persons holding 
offices of honor, profit or trust, civil pr military, under this 
State — members of the Legislature excepted — shall, in such 
time, and in such manner as the Legislature shall prescribe, take 
an oath well and truly to obey, execute and enforce this ordi- 
nance, and such act, or acts of the Legislature as may be passed 
in pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning 
of the same ; and on the neglect or omission of any such person 
or persons so to do, his or their office, or offices, shall be forth- 
with vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or persons 
were dead, or had resigned. 

No person, hereafter elected to any office of profit or trust, 
civU or military — members of the Legislatures excepted — shall? 
until the Legislatures shall otherwise provide and direct, enter 
on the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to 
discharge the duties thereof, untU he shall, in like manner, have, 
taken a similar oath. And no juror shall be impaneled in any 
of the courts of this State, in any cause, m which shall be called 
in question this ordinance, or any acts of the Legislature, passed 
in pursuance of the same, unless he shall first, in addition to the 
usual oath, have taken on oath that he "s\^ well and truly obey, 
execute and enforce such act or acts of the Legislature as may 
be passed, to carry the same into operation and effect, according 
to the true intent and meaning thereof. Now, from the pro- 
visions of this ordinance, it will be seen that the whole object of 
the framers of this convention was to destroy all the power in 
the people, and place as much power in the Legislature as ever 
any King or Prince ever had. The ordinance further declares 
and ordains, that the allegiance of the citizens of this State is 
due to the State only, and those to whom they may think 



81 

proper to transfer their allegiance. And as they have defined 
the word State to mean the Legislature, and them to be the 
lawful sovereigns, and under no obligations, but their own will 
by oath, or otherwise, they have, at all times, represented the 
State as one party, and the people another ^nd distinct party, 
in accordance with all the provisions of the ordinance, and so 
explained, by the addresses accompanying the ordinance. They 
have placed more power in the Legislature than exists in any 
King, Prince or Potentate in any civilized portion of the globe. 
The heathen African chief is the only one I know of, who pos- 
sesses the powers fixed in the Legislatures, under secession and 
States Rights principles. 

Now, Lincoln is acting with the Abolitionists, and carrying 
out the same principles, over the Northern people, as the South- 
ern politicians are carrying out over the South. For it is under 
the States Rights doctrine that they assume to have the right, 
or rather the power, to rob the people of their African property. 
If the legislative bodies have a right, by acts of legislation, and 
acts of majorities, to take one part of the people's property, and 
they under no obligation but their own wUl, they can legislate 
the life, liberty, and all the property from the people of the 
North, just as the politicians have done at the South. And to 
show clearly that they were acting under the same principles, 
and perhaps in concert together, it will be recollected that the 
Convention of 1832 disputed every obligation they were under, 
to the constituted authorities of the United States, and made a 
demand on all the constituted authorities, and all the citizens of 
the State of South Carolina, to obey and give effect to their 
ordinance, and all acts of the Legislature, both what they had 
passed and what they might pass heroafter ; and changed the 
oath of allegiance to support and defend the ordinance, and 
whatever laws they might pass, instead of the constituted au- 
thorities of the people. They declared that they would not 
permit the constituted authorities of the State, or of the United 
States, to prevent the enforcement of the ordinance — to shut up 
her ports and harrass her commerce ; if they did, they were no 
longer a member of the Union, and would not submit to the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, 
6 



82 

this was assuming all powers over the constituted authorities of 
the United States, and creating a different one altogether, pre- 
tending that they were trying to preserve the Union, while 
every act they did was destroying the Constitution and creating 
one of the most tyrannical governments in the world. All this 
was done under the pretence of protecting us against an oppres- 
sive tariff, when we were acting under as free trade as any 
government could make. 

These leading characters told the people of the South that 
they were paying all the tariff, and that they were paying forty 
dollars, out of every hundred dollars worth of cotton sold, into 
the pockets of Northern manufacturers. This was all false. 
We never paid one cent of duty on cotton, for the Constitution 
provided that no tax or duty should be laid on any article ex- 
ported from any State, so that no tax or duty can be laid on 
any article exported from the United States. It also provides 
that no article shall enter free in one port and pay duty in 
another, but that the duties shall be uniform throughout the 
United States. Now, the cotton pays no tax nor duty, in the 
United States, nor in England, or anywhere else. Now, did 
not these men know that ? They certainly did ; but the com- 
mon people did not, and believed it, because it came from such 
good authority. But to convince the people that they told 
them the truth, they brought up statistics of the Northern and 
Southern States. And as a sample of the statistics of 1860, I 
will explain, from what they made the assertion that the South- 
ern States paid nearly all the tariff. The statement is that : 
Northern States exported - - - - 97,346,979 
Southern States exported - - - - 218,896,450 
Upon this ground they asserted that the South paid to the 
amount of tariff they exported, and the North only paid tariff 
duties to the amount they exported, when there was not a cent 
of duty paid on what either exported ; for, according to the 
provisions, all goes free, and cotton pays none in the United 
States, or anywhere else. This shows that the South is largely 
the one benefitted by the exports, for they export so much more 
than the North. Now, the reason cotton passes free of tariff 
duties in England, is because it answers as an article of ex- 



83 

change, in payment of debts — the same as gold and silver — in 
every comitry where it goes. All nations want it, as it answers 
for an article of exchange, and will pay debts, the same as gold 
and silver. It enhances the value of it in place of diminishing 
it — and in place of the tariff injuring it, it can't do the cotton 
harm. But let us see who do pay the tariff duties. In the fii'st 
place, the North pays a great deal the most, because they buy 
the most of the goods. For the most goods are shipped to the 
Northern ports, where there is capital to buy them — good ports 
in which to land them, and also good ports for the vessels. 

The goods are sold in whatever port they are landed, and 
the merchants buying them pay the tariff duties on them, and 
they have to sell them that much higher to their customers, so 
that the consumers really pay all the tariff at last, and nobody 
else. But this duty that is paid, goes into the public treasury 
to pay the expenses of government, and is found to be the ea- 
siest way to raise money to defray the expenses of govern- 
ments. The people of every government are better satisfied 
to raise it in that way than any other way ever adopted, and it is 
the way adopted by all governments. 

From this, you will see, that the statement of our States 
Rights secessionists is all false, and not one word of it true. 
We were also told by these protectors, that the North had got 
rich oft' the South — that we were only united to them for their 
benefit, and our own loss and injury — that our own interests 
were antagonistic to theirs — that whatever benefitted them, in- 
jured us, and whatever benefitted us, injured them — that they 
had the majority, and if we remained with them, the inerests 
of the South were ruined. They represented to the people that 
we had no remedy against them, but acts of majorities, and 
this power was lost, and we had no remedy but to secede. But 
I think I have shown that, the people under the Constitution, 
are not governed by acts of majorities, nor protected by them 
either, but by a wn-itten agreement, which is established, as the 
supreme law of the land. 

The next thing to consider, that they have told us, is, that 
the North has gotten rich off of us, and if we separate from them, 
the riches they are getting from us, we will have for ourselves. 



84 

Now, this statement is false, also. It is the location of the 
country that makes those Northern cities rich, and gives them 
the advantage. There is a ridge of mountains running from 
the Potomac to the Valley of the Mississippi, which cut us off 
from any chance of furnishing commerce beyond them. So, if 
the merchants of Charleston were to buy ship loads of goods, 
they could only sell, to the wants of the people, up to the moun- 
tains, and, if they sold any more, they would have to ship them 
to the North, or New Oiieans. But the North furnishes twen- 
ty millions of people with goods, beyond those mountains, be- 
sides furnishing us. So the^' can afford to buy ship loads of 
goods, because they have a market in which to sell them, which 
the South has not, and that is the reason they have gotten rich 
by commerce. New Orleans will also become a very wealthy 
city, when all those rich vallies become settled, along those 
1 ir*^e rivers flowing into the great Mississippi. 

It is also said that the interests of the North and South are 
antagonistic. This, I will show, is another error, and this error 
is o-rounded on the authority of John C. Calhoun's philosophy 
of reasoning. According to his statement, every interest is an- 
tao-onistic. The ground upon which he rests his argument is 
first based upon a proposition Avhich he makes. Why did it 
become necessary that a government should exist ? He argues 
that it is necessary, from the very principle God has implanted 
in the nature of man. Every man is created, having in him a 
greater regard for his own interest, than for that of another, 
and, on that account, every one wants to get all he can, and 
give to others as little as he can, and, on this ground, every se- 
pai'ate interest becomes antagonistic. Even the tax payer and 
the tax receiver, offices and officers, and everything become an- 
tagonistic. This is the reason why, he says, we need a govern- 
ment in order that we can protect each interest against the an- 
tagonists of each other. 

Mr. Calhoun undertakes to devise ways and means to protect 
•each interest against the antagonists of each other. He tries 
the numerical majority, and finds it will not do of itself; he 
then tries the conciirrent majority, and this comes nearest of 
any plan he can find. That is, the country shall be organized, 



85 

and every interest divided to itself; every interest elects its 
own candidate, and then they might consider their interests se - 
cure in their own representative ; and, when they come to pass 
laws, have it so fixed that no law could be passed, unless all the 
different interests would give their consent to the law. But, in 
order to adopt a plan to force them to a compromise, when they 
refused to agree, and stop all action of government, which places 
us in anarchy, Avhich would be the|worst fix we coiild be in. 
And that would force all the different interests to a compro- 
mise. Every interest would conipromise as much of his inter- 
est, to the benefit of the other's interests, and, in this way, get 
along wonderfully. Then, he] goes on to compare the courts 
and juries as a model of this plan, imder his concurrent plan of 
majorities. He says, when the jury hears the case argued, they 
then meet to decide on it. They may not all agree at first, but 
one after another gives way ; but, for all that, no verdict can be 
legal without the consent of the whole. How seldom does it 
occur that a verdict is not obtained ? 

Now, let us examine this subject, and see if there is any 
truth or substance in this whole argument, except that God has 
created man with a greater regard for his own interest, than 
that of another. That is true. But, I deny that any of his 
other propositions are true. Let us examine for ourselves ; let 
us see whither the court and jury will answer as a model to 
represent his concurrent consent of the representatives of aU 
these different interests. Let us see if the two principles are 
not very different in character. In the first place, a juror is not 
allowed to sit on a trial where he has any interest in the case. 
If he has expressed an opinion before he heard the case tried, 
it deprives him of the right to sit on the jury. But how would 
it be with the representatives of these different interests ? They 
would not be bound, nor have any regard for any other inter- 
est, except their own, and before they were elected, they woul'd 
have to express their opinions, and be elected for the express 
purpose of sustaining those principles expressed. If they were 
elected for the very purpose of sustaining those principles, and 
should compromise away those principles, how would those re- 
presentatives feel when they returned to their constituents ? 



Would they not rather wish, Avhen the action of the govern- 
ment stopped, that it woiild stay stopped, rather than to go 
back to their constituents so disgraced? Would not such a 
government be the most unstable and insecure of all govern- 
ments ? 

But, let us examine his position in regard to each different 
interest, and see if it is true that all interests conflict with each 
other, and whether the different interests need any law to pro- 
tect them, other than God himself has created ? For we are 
told that when God had finished creating, all things were very 
good. But, it appears from Mr. Calhoun's -writings, that he has 
found that God was mistaken, and he (Mr. Calhoun) has set 
about to make things right by concurrent majorities, and fix 
every interest, so that they will protect each other against an- 
tagonists. Now, let us test the matter, and see whether there 
are antagonists in different interests. To prove the matter, let 
us throw away all the mechanics, and not allow them to live 
amongst us, if their interests are antagonistic to all the rest, 
and, so fully so, that we may test Mr. Calhoun's opinions. If 
it were not for the mechanic we could not have a knife and fork 
to eat with, a plate to eat from, a house to live in, a tool to fell 
the timber, a wagon, a carriage, a ship to sail in, a book to read 
in, or paper on which to write. Is not the whole world identi- 
fied with the mechanic, and all portions and classes of the world 
from the infant to the grave, benfitted by them ? The people's 
interests are everywhere identified largely by the preaching of 
the Gospel, for if it were not for the preachers, the people would 
soon become heathens, and it takes them all they can do to keep 
them from getting to be heathens. The lawyers are very need • 
ful, and the people are benefitted by having them to aid and 
protect them against fraud, and placing the ignorant on au 
equality with the more wise and intelligent. For, if a man does 
not know how to proceed to protect himself in his rights, he 
can go to a lawyer and be protected with as much mtellect as 
the country affords. The lawyer may be considered one of the 
equalizing powers to place all on an equality, so far as jorotect- 
ing their rights. It is to the interest of the lawyer to protect 
his client, because he pays him ; he has to prepare himself to 



87 

understand how to protect his client ; so, it is to the interest of 
the citizen to employ him, and the interest of the lawyer to pro- 
tect his client, and increase his practice, so both interests are 
identified. Doctors prepare themselves to relieve pain, and re- 
store speedy health to their patients. 

The one who is sick wants tlie relief from the doctor ; and 
he is desirous of giving every relief he can, to secure prac- 
tice. Competition rules all the charges of the mechanics 
and doctors. It will be seen that every branch of business, 
from the constable to the President, from the magistrates to 
the judo-es, from the farmer to the sailor, from the merchant 
to the manufacturer, make their interests all identified with 
the welfare of the whole union of the world. Take any one 
of these from us, out of the world, and their loss would be 
felt by the whole community. And it is necessary to pro- 
tect all and every one of these interests, and all that is neces- 
sary, is to make laws to protect each individuarl in their just 
rights against what is wrong ; and when a govenment has 
done tlmt, it is all that the government has any right or 
need to do. Competition in numbers engaged in each dif- 
ferent business, will regulate the value of everything. And 
this is the law that God has fixed, in place of Calhoun's 
numerical and concurrent majorities. Competition in plenty 
or scarcity, of either labor or articles, will govern prices. 
This is the never erring law God has made, and no other 
law can stand in competition with it. So it will be seen 
that the antagonist that Mr. Calhoun has been fighting all 
this time, is nothing but wind, without foundation. 

But let us examine into this principle, created in man, 
whether a regard for his own interests produces the princi- 
ple of antagonism or not ; and see if man will follow the law 
of God, if it is not the very principle that would prevent 
antagonisms. Now, I contend that there are but two antag- 
onists in the world — one is right and the other is wrong. 
Eight cannot be wrong, and wrong cannot be right. Is it 
rio-ht that a man have a greater regard for his own farm, 



wife and family, than for another man's farm, wife and 
family , and would it not be more apt to prevent antagonisms 
than if it were otherwise? Is it not right that a woman 
should have a greater regard for her own husband than an- 
other woman's husband ? Is it not right that a woman 
should have a greater regard for her own child, than for 
another woman's child ? Was it ever otherwise known on 
earth ? God has created this principle in man to be satis- 
fied with whatever He saw fit to bestow on him. Is it not 
right for a cow to have a greater regard for her own calf 
than for another cow's calf ? Is it not right for a mare to 
have a greater regard for her own colt, than for another 
mare's colt ? Is it not right that a bird should have a great- 
er regard for her own brood, than for the brood of another 
bird ? Is it not right that the hawk, owl or eagle should 
have a greater regard for their own brood, than for the 
brood of any other birds ? If it were not so, they would eat 
their own brood up, and their race would be lost. Lions, 
panthers, bears, and all animals and birds, have their princi- 
ples fixed in them, and we see it is very good, and all God's 
creation satisfied with their own. Now, this principle being 
one of the greatest and best gifts to man, to constitute his 
happiness, Mr. Calhoun would make it one of the greatest 
curses to man, throwing away every thing antagonistic to 
each other. And this great antagonism, of which he spoke, 
one interest against another, is just the contrary way to 
what antagonism does exist. It always exists inside of its 
own interest. 

By a great many persons engaging in the same business, 
they come into competition, one with another ; and this is 
the means of reducing all things to their proper value. But 
it is said that our interests are antagonistic to the North ; 
that what is to their interest is an injury to us, and what- 
ever is to our interest injures them. I think this assertion 
is as equally erroneous as those others, and every word un- 
true. But if the Union were destroyed, it would place us 



89 

in prettj much tlie same fix as taking away all the mechan- 
ics from us. Now, let us see what assertions were made by 
our Southern politicians in 1832, to make the people dissat- 
isfied with the Union we lived in, under the Constitution of 
the United States. They asserted that the cotton grower 
paid nearly all the tariff duties — at least forty dollars out of 
every hundred dollars worth of cotton sold — and that it 
went into the pockets of the North ; and if we would with- 
draw from the North, we would have free trade, and no du- 
ties to pay, and we would get more for our cotton. So they 
brought up their figures to show how much more the people 
of the South paid of the tariff duties than the North. 
When I looked at their statistics I was utterly astonished. 
I always knew their statements were false, but I never ima- 
gined they were so utterly void of truth — the shadow of a 
foundation of truth. But as proof of what I say, I will 
produce their statistics, which they brought up to prove 
their statements. The exports of the Northern and South- 
ern products stand thus : 

Export of Northern products, - - - $97,346,973 
Export of Southern products,. - - - 218,895,450 

Now, they asserted that as we exported so many millions, 
that we paid that much more tariff than the North. It will 
be seen that there was never one cent of tariff duties col- 
lected from any exportation either North or South — all 
passed out free of duty. For the Constitution provides that 
no tax or duty shall be laid on any article exported from 
any State. No article shall enter free in one port and pay 
duties in another, and that all duties shall be uniform 
throughout the United States. This shows clearly that no 
tariff was, or could be, collected on exportations, and, that 
all the North exported, went out free, and all the South 
exported, went out free ; so that there was not one word 
of truth in their statement. The truth was,we exported 
two hundred and eighteen millions, while the North ex- 
ported only ninety-seven millions ; so the South had the 



90 

benefit of sending out that much more, free, than the 
!North. The South, in place of being injured by the ex- 
portation, as they said, was largely benefitted, and they 
never paid one cent of duties on the cotton, for it passes free 
of duty in England, and (I think) in all other governments. 
And the reason why it goes free, is, because it answers as 
an article of exchange ta pay debts, the same as gold and 
silver. Had we preferred, we could have sold our cotton to 
England for gold and silver. And why did we not ? The 
reason is this — the North are large consumers. It was said 
that they were no benefit to us, and were getting rich off of 
US, without our receiving any benefit from them. Let us 
see if there is any truth in their statement. I will admit 
that the ^Northern cities are rich, but the question is, do 
they get all their riches from the South, or, is it the location 
of the country that makes the Northern cities rich ? Let us 
see. In the first place, there is a ridge of mountains run- 
ning from the Potomac to the Mississippi Valley, which pre- 
vents the transportation of goods across those mountains 
by the Southern cities. And the North, having lakes, ca- 
nals and railroads, have access to all those Northern States. 
They furnish twenty-three millions of people with com- 
merce, beside us. They can afford to buy a large quantity 
of goods, because they have a market in which to sell them. 
This is the reason why the Northern cities have gotten rich, 
and not merely the trade of the South. If Charleston were 
to buy a large quantity of goods, like the Northern cities, 
they could only sell, so far as the wants of the people de- 
manded, up to the mountains ; and, if they sold any more, 
they would have to ship them round to the North, or New 
Orleans, before they could sell them. So, it will be seen, it 
is the location of the country that gives them the advantage, 
and not merely the trade of the South, and that the state- 
ments they made in that respect were wrong. But, as the 
Southern politicians assert, is the North no benefit to 
the South, and their interests antagonistic to ours ? Let us 



91 

see whether that be ' true or not. In the first place, the 
South is a producer of cotton, and the more consumers she 
lias, the greater will be the value of cotton. 

jSTow, the North is a great consumer, being twenty-three 
millions in number, and will consume a great deal of our 
cotton. They purchase the largest portion of the goods 
used, both in the North and South, and, consequently, have 
large payments to make whenever they buy the goods. It 
is easier to get cotton than gold and silver. They do not 
only buy cotton for their own consumtion, but to pay for 
the goods which they buy in the foreign markets. And, in 
this way, they become large competitors with England and 
France, in keeping up the price of cotton. For nothing, in 
this world, rules the price of anything but competition* 
The number to sell and the number to buy, rules and regu- 
lates the value of all things. This is a principle that God, 
himself, has fixed, and no one can alter it. When any busi- 
ness is very piofitable, a great many will engage in it un- 
til the competition amongst them will bring down the pro- 
fits to their proper value. 

Now, it will be seen, that the quantity of cotton con- 
sumed by the North, both for their own consumption, and 
to meet the payments for goods bought, makes them large 
competitors with England and France, and in place of being 
an injury are a great benefit to us in that way. If the 
South chooses to sell her cotton to England, she could get 
gold and silver for it, and shave it off to the North at a 
profit, to meet their payments in other countries. Many of 
the merchants, who trade wath England, sell to the North- 
ern merchants, and, if they do not give as much as the 
market of England justifies, we are not forced to sell to 
them ; so that the South is completely independent in that 
relpect. Now, it will be seen by those views, that instead 
of the North being an injury to us in this respect, we are 
largely benefitted by them, and that all these stories about 
their interests and ours being antagonistic, are untrue, and 



92 

without foundation. Let us look a little further, and see if 
the interests of the Xorth and South are not so identfied 
that they cannot be separated -svithout great injury to both 
parties, one as much as the other. And see if the people 
of the North and South should not both at once withdraw 
themselves from this unnatural war, brought on by those 
politicians by their false and fraudulent statements. They 
now have the people under their military power, and are 
forcing them to kill, rob and destroy one another. 

But we will proceed to show the great identity of our 
interest, as I first began to show the interest and benefit the 
South derives from a union with the Xorth. I will con- 
tinue to carry that out, aiid afterwards show the interest the 
North has in a Union with the South. We will say that one 
woman can, by making nothing else, make four bales of 
cotton, weighing each four hundred pounds, this at ten dol- 
lars per hundred would bring $160, with $160, we can 
buy sixteen hundred yards of osnaburgs from the manufac- 
turers of the North, which amount would require ten hands 
to card and spin — this will save the labor of nine hands; 
they making cotton at $160 each would give $1,441 by 
having access to the manufactures of the North. But 
suppose we should buy the common shirting, we could buy 
thirty-two hundred yards for $ 1 60, which would save the 
labor of nineteen hands, who, at $160 per year, would 
make $2,960. It might be said that we could get these 
advantages from the manufactories in England, but if we 
had to depend on England alone for those qualities of goods, 
they would be sure to sell them much higher. The great 
number of manufactories at the North has created a suffi- 
cient competition to cause them to sell as low as the price 
they give for cotton will justify. They prevent the foreign 
markets from extorting from us, and the foreign markets 
protect us from extortion by the home markets, and in this 
way we are benefitted in both ways. Again, the North can 



93 

make as miicli corn on one acre as we can make on four, so 
that they can raise four hogs with the same labor we can 
raise one, and can sell four times as cheap as we can afford 
to sell. Thus, bv buying hogs from the Xorth, we save the 
labor of four hands to raise cotton. They can raise four 
horses with the same labor that we can raise one, therefore 
we can buy from them four times as cheap as we can raise, 
and this gives us an extra amount of hands with which to 
raise cotton. They can raise four head of cattle with the 
same labor we can raise one; four times as much leather, 
and can afford to sell us shoes, ready-made, four times as 
cheap as we could make them at home. Tliey can sell us 
bacon, lard, beef, flour, and every other article of eatables 
of every kind, four times as cheap as we can raise them. 
And when we buy, it saves that much labor that we can 
apply to raising cotton. Again, if a severe drought or some 
disaster were to take place in the South so tliat we were 
likely to be in great want for provisions — under the union 
we have a large territory of rich lands, producing so much 
provisions that we could get a supply of provisions at all 
times at a cheap rate without having to go over the seas, 
for them, and if we did go, they would not have them to 
spare. These and many other benefits we derive from our 
interest with the North, so numerous that it is not necessary 
to mention them. And as the Constitution of the United 
States has provided that no tax or duty shall be laid on any 
article exported from any State, and that no imposition 
duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State upon the 
property of the United States, nor the property of any par- 
ticular State, it secures free trade to foreign markets, and 
also to each State in the Union. 

Now why did our secessionists tell us that if we went out 
of the Union we would have free trade, when, under the 
Constitution, we had as free trade as could be created ? 
Has one promise they made us been fulfilled I We hare no 
trade at all. They said that we would get goods cheaper ; 



94 

has that been true? Thej said we would have no war. 
"When they called out volunteers they said it was to 
protect our homes and firesides. How long did they get to 
stay at their homes and firesides? I leave that for the 
people to decide for themselves. 

But as I liave shown what advantages the South gains by 
a union with the North, let us see what interests the North 
receives by a union with the South, In the first place she 
is largely benefitted by our cotton, both for her own clothing 
and for merchandize, and for profitable employment in 
manufactories. In the next place, all this surplus provision, 
cattle, horses, hogs, beef, lard, butter, shoes, saddles, and a 
thousand articles they do not need for themselves, would be 
lost to them if it were not for the trade with the South. In 
the first place, the South furnishes the cotton which keeps 
up the manufactories at the North, and employs a great 
many laborers and a great capital, and aids in keeping up 
merchandising. This builds up cities and towns, and those 
cities and towns with our cities and towns become great 
consumers, with the planters of the South, of horses, hogs 
and provisions of every kind. This furnishes a market for 
all they make over and above what they need. Tliey buy 
also from the mechanic, shoes, saddles, bridles, carriages, 
harness, wagons, nails, iron, axes, hoes in immense quan- 
tities, for which they would have no use were it not for the 
market of the South. So that the interest of the North is 

as much dependent on the South as the South is on the 
North. I think it is not necessary to say any thing mor e 

on the subject. 

This shows that the interests of each section is completely 
identified with the other, and not antagonistic, and that all 
those interests are diff'erent and at diff'erent places, yet they 
are all needed, and answer a proper purpose, and benefit all 
j)arties. Every interest is a benefit to the community, and 
needed, or they would not exist. It is the very need of 
them that brings them into existence ; if they were not 



95 

made. So tliey all agreed that tliey would quit doing any- 
thing for the body. The legs agreed that they would not 
carry the body any longer ; the arms would not work any 
longer to feed and clothe the body ; the throat would not 
swallow any more for the body; But it was not long before 
the legs found out that they were not able to walk and carry 
the body ; the arms were not able to work, and the throat 
found itself in a bad condition. So they all soon found out 
that it was through the strength and nourishment they re- 
ceived through the body, they were able to do what they 
did. So, I think, Mr. Calhoun's followers will soon find out 
that they are in the same situation as the legs, arms and 
mouth, so far as interests are concerned. Before the war, 
they said we needed nothing , but, since the war, we find 
that we need evei-ything, but the war. But, from these re- 
marks, I must not be understood to justify Lincoln and his 
Abolition party, or those secessionists ; one is as much out 
of the Union as the other. Their principles are both the 
same. For the Lincoln party claims the right by acts of 
legislation and acts of majorities, to emancipate the African 
property. Now, if they have the right to emancipate one 
kind of property, they have the right to emancipate all — 
which is the very principle contended for by the secession- 
ists, If that principle were established, the Constitution 
would not be worth the paper on which it is printed. There- 
fore, I think, that Lincoln's party and Davis' party are both 
in concert. If Lincoln should conquer, the - people would 
be no nearer under the Constitution than if Davis' should 
conquer. All rights, liberties, privileges and property se- 
cured to the people would be taken from them. 

From these views, it will appear that every interest that 
exists, does depend, more or less, on the aid and assistance 
of all the others, like the head, legs, arms, mouth and body 
throughout. Take away the legs, arms and head, and the 
body would be of very little use ; and take the body and 
the head, the legs and arms would be of little use. Just so, 



96 

needed, tliej would not remain in existence, but would die 
of their own accord. Mr. Calhoun's philosophy, through- 
out, is like the fable of the head, legs, arms and mou^th 
forming a conspiracy against the body. They asserted that 
the body did nothing, while the legs carried the body where- 
ever it went ; the arms worked to furnish food and clothing 
for the body ; the mouth chewed and the throat swallowed 
the food for the body, while it consumed everything they 
without manufacturers and consumers, our surplus cotton, 
over and above what we need for our own use, would be of 
no use; without merchants, ships and sailors, we could not 
be put in possession of all the luxuries God has provided for 
the benefit of man. For God caused one portion of the 
world to produce one luxury, while he caused another part 
of the world to produce another luxury ; so that it was ne- 
cessary to have merchants, ships and sailors, so that we may 
be put in possession of all the different luxuries provided 
for man. Mr. Calhoun's philosophy is the most false philo- 
sophy I have ever seen put on paper. And, whenever his 
principles are attempted to be carried out, it produces de- 
struction to life, liberty and property. Look at his policy 
in regard to the United States Bank, what destruction it 
brouglit on all classes, at home and abroad. And why such 
a policy should be adopted by men of intellect, is astonish- 
ing; and as so much injury was received by the commercial 
world, at home and abroad, and by all classes of the com- 
munity. It will, perhaps, be proper to examine into the 
cause, why and how the injury was produced. In the first 
place, let us see what is the use of money ? We do not eat 
it, neither do we wear it. Why, then, is so great a value 
placed on money ? It is because it answers as a medium of 
exchange for anything we want to buy, and that is the only 
use we have for it, Now, the United States Bank furnished 
money that answered every purpose (for that use for which 
it would pass) all over the United States, and answered as 
an article of exchange for all the purposes that gold and 



97 

silver could do. It paid taxes, tariff duties for public lands, 
and would pass in England and in France. For it would 
buy cotton, or anything else they wished to buy in the 
United States. So it answered as an article of exchange for 
anything we wanted to buy, better than gold or silver, be- 
cause the banks had so arranged that all the solvent banks 
could give checks on the Bank of the United States, and 
they could transfer those checks by letter, or travel with 
them himself, without any encumbrance of weight, or any 
danger of being robbed. And as these checks would an- 
swer as an article, of exchange, with which to buy anything 
he wanted, or pay any debt, it answered a much better pur- 
pose than gold and silver. In addition to this, the people, 
under the government of the Constitution of the United 
States, being so secure in all their lives and liberty, they 
had increased in wealth and prosperity to such a degree, 
that there could not have been a sufficient quantity of 
gold and silver to answer the purpose as an article of 
exchange, for the transaction of their business. So that 
it really became necessary that some plan should be adopt- 
ed, by which to supply this want. This bank answered every 
purpose that could be desired, by uniting with the other 
banks in giving and receiving checks ; so that commerce 
was accommodated, and prosperity was increasing to an 
extent never before known. 

This bank served another important purpose. It received 
all the public treasures free of charge, and also paid out all the 
claims against the United States free of charge, which saved a 
large amount of expense to the United States. In addition to 
this, the Bank of the United States was responsible if they 
squandered any of the funds, or undertook to defraud the 
United States, and could be made responsible for all moneys 
placed in their hands, for they were solvent. But what is the 
situation of the country under the Lincoln and Calhoun parties. 
Since that bank has been destroyed, how many irresponsible 
men have been placed in offices as collectors, paymasters and 



98 

receivers, at high wages, throwing a heavy expense on the 
Government, that did not exist under the United States bank- 
ing arrangement. How much fraud is practiced, and how 
many have run oflf with thousands of the public money ? This 
is all a loss, and has to be made up by taxirig the people. 
Although the loss was heavy in all these things, yet it is not to 
be compared to the loss of the people in the destruction of 
their commerce "svith the world at the time the Bank of the 
United States was destroyed. The people were in as pros- 
perous a condition as they ever had been, and doing well. The 
United States bank, with the aid and assistance of the other 
banks, could furnish money enough to carry on all the transac- 
tions of the people, and furnish an article of exchange for all 
their trading purposes, and it appeared that, owing to the 
increase of wealth, all the money of the United States and all 
the money of the different banks was needed to carry out the 
common transactions of their business. At the time that the 
United States Bank was destroyed, Mr. Calhoun and his party 
had a law passed that nothing but gold and silver should be 
taken in payment of public dues. Now, this not only deprived 
the people of the quantity of money in the Bank of the United 
States, but also placed the other banks in a position in which 
they could not furnish money to the people with which to 
carry on their business. It placed the banks in such a situation 
that they had to furnish all the gold and silver to pay the public 
dues. Mr. Calhoun and his party said that this law was passed 
to prevent the Government from bankruptcy. But what does 
Mr. Calhoun mean by the Government ? He must mean the 
officers who received their pay in gold and silver ; so he made 
two parties in his legislation — the people one l^arty, the officers 
the other. He provided that the officers should be paid in gold 
and silver; but in what condition did he leave the people? 
They passed a law that all foreign importations should be 
allowed thirty days' credit, by giving bond and security for the 
payment of the tariff duties. This gave them a chance to sell 
their goods for bank bills, and all they had to do was to call on 
the banks for the gold and silver with which to pay the tariff 
duties. The banks had to furnish gold and silver to pay for all 



99 

the public lands, all the post office dues, and all kinds of public 
debts. And as their charters only allowed them to issue three 
paper dollars for one of gold they had at the time of the issue? 
and draws were continually making upon them, it was inipossi. 
ble for them to furnish the people money to carry on their 
transactions with each other. The cotton merchant could not 
get money to buy cotton ; they failed to pay their merchants 
in this country — failed to pay each other ; our merchants failed 
to pay the foreign merchants ; confidence in the banks were 
lost, and the confidence of all classes was lost. All this was 
done by passing those laws. 

Now, the domg away with the United States Bank removed 
a large amount of capital from the use of the people, that they 
needed, but it would not have done so much harm as it did, had 
it not been for the making of two parties in the payment 
of money. For he secured the oflicers in the payment of gold 
and silver, and, by that means, crippled the banks. If the gov- 
ernment, or the officers of government, who passed those bad 
laws, had taken the notes of the specie-paying banks, the banks 
could still have furnished paper money for all purposes of trade, 
and the people might still have gotten along. But that law 
was completely making war on the people and the banks, and 
destroying the prosperity of both. Kow, you see what great 
evil was brought on the people by making two parties. And 
it is doing the same thing now, by making the South one party 
and the North another. The Constitution of the United States 
makes no parties. Whatever right a citizen has at the South, 
the citizen of the North has the same permanently secured to 
him. But the whole theory of Mr. Calhoun"s philosophy is to 
create parties, and array one party against another. Accord!- 
ing to his philosophy, he makes the United States Government 
one party and the State governments another party, each hav- 
ing a right to decide for itself as to the extent, of its powers, , 
and array these two parties as antagonists, one against another.. 
He does not represent them one and the same thing — ^both ere., 
ated for the protection of the people in all their rights, liberties 
and privileges — the one to transact the national affairs, and re- 
gulate commercial affairs of the people, and the other to re^u- 



100 

late domestic affair.*, both those constitutions uniting together, 
for the same purpose. But he represents those two govern- 
ments as two antagonists, each trying to usurp the most power 
and before he gets done explaining the conditions of those two 
antagonists, he gets them in perfect conflict. But what still 
seems strange, each one has the right to decide for themselves 
the extent of their power, having no lawful arbiter between 
them. He then undertakes to show how those disputes must 
be settled. One is, by forming an alliance with a certain com- 
bination of interests, the nearest assimilated together, to form 
parties for the j^rotection of their interests against the antago- 
nism of all other interests. For he concluded that all interests 
were antagonists against each other, which I have shown to be 
false. But he admits that some interests ai'e more nearly iden- 
tified than others, and with those two parties of interest he cre- 
ates one party against another, and, in this way, each party 
strives to gain the majoi'ity, and, by that majority, protect them- 
selves against the antagonists of the other interests. 

Now, this is the manner in which the States have to resist 
the antagonists of the Constitution of the United States, but he 
calls it the General Government, or means, rather, the legisla- 
tion of Congress, which has no power or authority outside the 
Constitution. But he represents that they have the right to 
decide for themselves as to the extent of their jiower, and the 
only way we had to protect ourselves was to collect parties, 
and resist them by acts of majorities. 

Thus, by creating parties by a combination of interests 
nearest identified with each other, we might protect ourselves 
ao-ainst the antagonists of the opposite interests. ISTow this 
would be protecting ourselves agiiinst something that never did 
exist, for there is no antagonism in indifferent interest. All 
interests are needed to aid and assist each other, and there is no 
antao-onism of interests except what originated in the mind of 
Mr. Calhoun, and this is the manner of his whole philosophy. 
This is one of the remedies he proposes, by which the State 
crovernments may protect themselves against the encroachments 
of the General Government. But he admits that this of itself 
would not do, He would organize all the interests to better 



101 

aid the carrying ont this wonderful scheme, and he wonld fix a 
concurrent majority of interests and have it so fixed that, before 
any law could be passed, all the interests would have to give 
their consent. But if no consent could be gotten from all, he 
would stop the action of government altogether, and this 
would force them all to a compromise. Every one would give 
up some of his interests rather than have no government. He 
also brings in the courts and juries to represent his plan, or as 
a model of his plan of government. He says that, although 
the twelve jurymen must all agree before a verdict can be 
brought in, they may all agree at first, but after reasoning 
together, one will give up part of his opinion, and then another, 
until they all come to a compromise and all agree. He says 
this plan of settling disputes had given better satisfaction than 
any other that has ever been adopted. But let us see if this 
model of government "will represent his. In the first place, no 
one is allowed to sit as a juryman if he has any interest in the 
case, or has expressed his opinion before he hears the case 
tried. Now, in the case of Mr. Calhoun's figure, none of the 
party has been elected to takePcare of any other interest than 
his own, and before he Avas elected he woiild have to express 
his opinion and be elected on that express opinion. But if that 
candidate should compromise those interests he was elected .to 
protect, how could he meet his constituents ? Would he not 
rather see the government destroyed ? Now, could any man 
have a regard for the welfare of his countiy who would try to 
adopt such principles as these for the standard of his govern- 
ment ? It will be seen that his philosophy is built and founded 
on antagonism. He makes the State governments and the United 
States Government antagonists, when the principles of each 
are the same. The Constitutions of each State ought precisely 
to agree, because the officers in each State are bound by oath, 
or affirmation, to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States, notwithstanding any constitution or law in any 
State to the contrary. Now, every officer in every State has to 
swear to support and defend the Constitution of his own State 
as well as the Constitution of the United States — they surely 
ought to agi-ee and not be antagonistic. It seems to me that 



102 

the opinion advanced is the most unreasonable and the furthest 
from right of any principles I ever saw put on paper. The 
other principles he has set forth as protectors of right against 
wrong are equally erroneous, if not more so. One of his 
remedies was separate State action — every State to decide for 
itself— choose its own mode and manner of redress — and counter- 
legislation. This would be a State carrying itself as a party 
against all the States, and at the same time pretending to be a 
member of the Union. Now, the word union means one, it 
does not mean two or parties — it means one united agreement to 
give equal rights to all the members, and the written agree- 
ment shows what these rights are. But Mr. Calhoun's philo- 
sophy has no union at all, makes nothing but parties, and the 
interest of each party to oppose the others. Now if we had 
no better security for our rights than one party against another 
party, we would have no security at all, because one party 
might gain the ascendency to-day, and put you in possession of 
your rights, and the other party gain the ascendency to-morrow 
and take your rights from you. It would be like throwing a 
cork upon the sea — it might be h^e to-day, but there would be 
no certainty where it would be to-morrow, or whether you 
would ever see it again. For, according to his philosophy, 
there was no lawful arbiter, to protect your rights, appointed. 
If you had not a party strong enough you had no protection — 
and this party, formed out of a combination of mterests, is 
antagonistic to every other. His whole platform was to create 
parties. 

Out of the words Federal and National, he made two par- 
ties, when they meant the same thing. The words Federal, 
National and Union, mean the same thing, so do the words 
united, consolidated and cemented. He made parties of all 
these words, as though they all meant different things, while 
they are the same in substance. The word State means the ter- 
ritory or boundary separating the one from the other. It will 
apply to the people, acting under their constitutional authority, 
by law, to the extent and boundary of the territory, which 
unitedly means the same. The words consolidated and united 
mean the same, for the word united means the agreement, by 



103 

which all the members united together agreed to be governed 
themselves, and all others. This was consolidating the agree- 
ment into one joint agreement, and this made a confederated 
government, and means, that the signers to this agreement re- 
present our National government. But Mr. Calhoun makes 
those words all great antagonists to each other. His principles 
array the whole human family as antagonists, from the cradle to 
the grave, while I have shown that God has arranged every- 
thing in harmony and unity ; and has created everything to act 
in concert, for the benefit of man. All that is necessery, as far 
as governm-ent matters are concerned, is to make laws to pro- 
tect every man in his just rights against wrong. This can only 
be done by creating laws, courts and juries to decide between 
the disputing parties, as we have done under the provisions of 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Calhoun's remedy is entirely opposed to the Constitution 
of the States or the United States. He is for every State to 
be separate from every other State — the Legislature to have 
complete and absolute control over the lives, liberties and pro- 
perty of the people — the people to have no course but to obey, 
and the Legislature under no obligation but their own will, and 
will admit of no allegiance to any other authority than their 
own, or those to whom they transfer their allegiance. Now, 
the only remedy provided against unjust legislation by Mr. Cal- 
houn's works, is the elective franchise. This elective franchise 
has to be obtained out of different combinations of interests, 
all antagonists, but the nearest identified, before you can get 
your party strong enough, to coxmterlegislate for you. All this 
time you must submit to this unjust legislation, and have no 
course but to obey. But, should you fail to get your party 
strong enough, to counterlegislate for you, then place yourself in 
some attitude to get a compromise. Now, compromisors have 
to take whatever they can get, not what they ought to get, and 
being in the minority, and having no other way in which to be 
protected, he would accept whatever they thought proper to 
give him, if that was nothing. 

But Mr. Calhoun brings in another remedy — that is, secession. 
But suppose the Legislature would pass a law that you should 
not secede, you have no course left but to obey. And if you 



104 

speak against any act they pass, or resist, in any manner what- 
ever, the penalty is death. What coiild be gained by secession? 
We have an example before us. We were promised free trade, 
but we have no trade, not even with the adjoining States, un- 
less the Legislature of each State permits us. We were prom- 
ised that we would get goods very cheap ; we cannot get any 
goods unless we pay for them from ten to one hundred times as 
much as we paid before this great remedy, secession, was in- 
troduced. We were told that everything we needed would be 
furnished for much less than we were getting them, but that we 
needed nothing from others, and everybody was dependent on 
us for our cotton. But, it seems that we need a great deal from 
others, and that, although we have the cotton, we have not the 
manufactories to furnish a supply, and the people cannot get a 
supply of cards to make the cloth at home. 

We were told that there would be no war — that has proved 
to be untrue. We were told that there would be no taxes to 
pay — which has proved to be untrue. All those calamities have 
befallen us, since this remedy, secession, has taken place. And 
a debt created over our heads, which, it will take everything 
we have to pay, if it ever is paid. Now, this is the true situa- 
tion brought on the people by adopting those principles, and 
resorting to those remedies adopted by Mr. Calhoun and his 
followers. It was impossible that any one, or all those princi- 
ples, could have given protection against any of those evils, of 
which he complained. It involved us in war, and we were 
largely in the minority. According to the law of nations, when 
we seceded, it deprived us of any right to any of the public 
property ; so we left the North in undisputed possession of all 
the shipping, navy, arms, ammunition and fortifications, except 
those that we took from them by force, (and they were very 
few,) and all the public property of every desci'iption, leaving 
us nothing to fight with, and little to fight for, but separate 
States Rights and the right of secession, which has brought all 
this distress and destruction upon us, without even the show or 
appearance of benefit ; but, on the contrary, every appearance 
of total destruction. 

Now, I think it is time we should change our position, and 



105 

not follow those leaders any longer. Now, the Lincoln Aboli- 
tionist party are acting on the same principles as the States 
Rights party, and they are out of the Union as much as Davis 
and his secession party. To show that they both agree pre- 
cisely in principle, without the shadow of difference, we 
see, that in the Convention of 1832, the South Carolina Con- 
vention declared that every State had a right to make any law 
it pleased — a right to decide for themselves as to the extent of 
their obligations — and that, after once declared, the citizen had 
no right but to obey. The Convention in Cincinnati declared 
that it shoilld not be denied that a State had the right to eman- 
cipate. The third Convention, called before the election of 
Lincoln, Sol^thern and Northern Democrats, as they called them- 
selves, (but had not a particle of Democracy about them,) de- 
clared that a State had a right to take everything from the peo- 
ple. Now, these are the principles contended for by the States 
Rights followers of Mr. Calhoun. 

Now, let us see the principles adopted by the Abolitionists. 
They have not held conventions, nor made public declarations. 
This is the reason why I have confined myself so much to the 
declarations of the Southern politician's State Right principles, 
for they have put on paper their jDrinciples, held in convention, 
and they cannot dodge out of them. But I will now show by 
the acts of the Abolitionists that they both act on the same 
principles of State Right sovereignty, and also show that they 
went out of the Union. For they did not go out by secession, 
but by acts of treason, in opposition to the provisions of the 
Constitution. And those acts corresponded with the declara- 
tions of the Convention of South Carolina, in 1832, which gave 
a State the right to make any law they pleased, and be under 
no obligation but their own will — choose their own mode and 
manner of redress. Now, the Abolitionists of ten States passed 
a law, that if a servant, or person bound to service, in another 
State, escaped to their State, they should be free. And if any 
person attempted to secure such servant, or person boimd to 
service, or any one aided or assisted in recovering such servant, 
or person bound to service, the person attempting to recover 
or aiding and assisting to recover, shall be fined to a large ex- 
tent, and imprisoned. 



106 

Now, this was assuming power on the part of the State, to 
make any law they pleased, and this was choosing their own 
mode and measure of redress, exactly in accordance with the 
acts of the Convention of South Carolina, in 1832. The Con- 
vention at Cincinnati declared that it should not be denied that 
they had a right to emancipate. Now, this Cincinnati Conven- 
tion provided for the support of the Abolitionists as strong as 
language could express — professing, at the same time, that they 
were opposing it. The last Convention, before the election of 
Lincoln, for fear they had not made abolition strong enough, 
declared that the State had the right to take everything from 
the people, which the secession Abolitionists and the Lincoln 
Abolitionists are domg, by robbing and killing the people, and 
dragging them out, and forcing them to fight one another. And 
all this to carry out the Abolition principles over the people, 
and taxing them until they will take everything from them, as 
well as declare they have a right so to do. This is the deplora- 
ble condition in which the people are placed by those two po- 
litical leaders. Now, both these pohtical leaders pretended 
they were acting under, or in accordance with the Constitution 
of the United States. But let us see if there is one word of 
truth in any of their declarations. 

Did the State have a right, under the Constitution, to make 
any law they pleased ? Or had the State a right to emancipate 
or take everything from the people ? The Constitution pro- 
vides that citizens be secure in their person, papers, houses and 
effects — they shall be preserved inviolable. It also provides 
that no law or regulation shall be made, by any State, to dis- 
charge a servant, or person bound to service, due to a citizen of 
any other State. But if a servant, or person bound to service^ 
escape to another State, they shall be bound to deliver up such 
servant or person boimd to service. Now, this was the con- 
tract, existing one with the other, all over the United States. 
And the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
State shall have power to impair the obligation of contracts. 
This shows clearly that a State has not the power to pass any 
law they think proper, nor have they the right to emancipate, 
or take anything from the jjeople without full compensation. 



107 

For the Constitution provides that no private property shall be 
taken for public use without full compensation to the owner ; so 
it seems that they neither have a right to emancipate, nor a 
right to make any law they please, nor a right to take anything 
from the people. But, under the Lincoln administration, and 
under the Davis administration, they are using all this power. 

Now, it will be seen, that the acts of those ten States — that 
aided and assisted in electing Lincoln — were guilty of actual 
treason. For, whenever any political party form themselves 
into a combination, and create laws in opposition to the laws of 
the government, imder which they live, and the courts decide 
that such laws are illegal, unconstitutional, null and void — and> 
after the decision of those courts, if they attempt to enforce 
these laws they have created, it constitutes treason. Now, the 
Court of the United States is set apart as the lawful arbiter, 
and had decided that African property Avas property, and that 
that kind of proj^erty had the same right, under the Constitu- 
tion, in every State, to be protected the same as any other 
property. 

This decision was given in the Dred Scott case. Now, the 
States, passing those acts after the decision of the Supreme 
Court, were guilty, of treason, and were not entitled to any 
vote in the Union. This is what brings in Lincoln as guilty of 
treason. He has associated hmiself with those treasonable Ab- 
olitionists, and is attempting to force the people of the South, 
under those treasonable Abolitionists, who profess that it is 
their intention to take from the South their African property. 
And, in place of proceeding against these men by a legal pro- 
cess, to show, by law, that those men, who had assumed that 
they had the power to secede, and summoned them to appear 
before the Court of the United States, to test whether they had 
the right to secede, (for they claimed that they had the consti- 
tutional right,) and, if they did not appear, the case would have 
gone against them by default. But, if they had appeared, they 
had a right to show cause, and a right to complain to the courts 
against the proceedings of the Abolition party, and they had 
the same right to redress wrongs. 

But if any of the States, North or South, had committed 



108 

treason, the courts had a right to decide. There can be no 
doubt but that the Northern States committed treason when 
they passed the fugitive slave law, for the courts had already 
decided that question. But the secession question had not 
been decided, so that Lincoln had no right to declare war, 
neither would have Congress had the right, unless the judges 
had first decided that the Southern States had no right to 
secede. If the courts had decided that the Southern States 
had not the right to secede, and they still persisted in secession 
after the decision of the court, then it would have been lega^ 
for Congress to have declared war against the State of South 
Carolina. But Lincoln took the responsibility on himself, as if 
he were the government, and, together with his abolition trea- 
soners, declared war against the State of South Carolina. The 
other Southern States, seeing those treasonable attempts, by 
force of arms, in place of using the law as they ought to have 
done, roused the feelings of all the .other States, knowing that 
if South Carolina was conquered by those Abolitionists, who 
were out of the Union, it would be their time next. They 
were compelled to come to the aid and assistance of South 
Carolina, according to the agreement existing xmder the Con- 
stitution, that we shall support and defend each other on any 
account whatever — so all the States that assisted South Carolina 
cannot be guilty of treason. 

Now the foolish and treasonable act of South Carolina, fol- 
lowing up the treasonable philosophy of John C. Calhoun, and 
the treasonable acts of Lincoln and his Abolitionists, have 
brought on all this destruction of life, liberty and property in 
America. The philosophy of both is false, and they have no 
foundation in the Constitution for either of their principles. 
Now the proper course for South Carolina to have pursued was 
to have protested the election of Lincoln, and denied the right 
of vote to those ten States, that by their acts committed 
treason, and to have brought the case in court to show and 
prove that they had committed treason, and that they were not 
entitled to any of the privileges or protection of the grovern- 
ment, which the judges would have been compelled to have 
decided in our favor, if we had remained in the Union. It 



109 

would have also left in our possession all the shipping, navy, 
arms, ammunition, territories, and all the public property of 
every kind. 

But to follow out Calhoun's philosophy, they must say 
nothing about the North being out of the Union ; but South 
Carolina must go out and leave those treasonable Abolitionists 
in the undisputed possession of all the treasure, sliipping, navy, 
arms and ammunition, leaving themselves without anything to 
fight for or anything to fight with. All this was done to get 
out of the Union as well as the Abolitionists. They then called 
on the people to protect themselves against the hordes of Abo- 
litionists without one dollar to equip them, except what they 
begged or borrowed. And now they are about to take every 
thing from the people, in taxes, to pay those enormous debts 
and expenses that have been contracted. But this is nothing 
to be compared with the hardships suffered by our true-hearted, 
devoted and deluded soldiers, who have been dragged from 
their homes — some sons from their parents, husbands from their 
wives and little children, leaving them without any protection, 
only their mother, to shift the best they can. A vast number 
of fathers have lost their beloved sons, and a great many wives 
have lost their husbands, and children left fatherless. Many 
have been dragged into sickly swamps and all kinds of 
exposure, besides being compelled to meet those, as enemies, 
who, by i^roper management, might have been friends, to shoot 
and kill each other — and for what ? all to establish one of the 
grandest military monarchical governments the world can pro. 
duce, under the name of liberty, under the pretence that their 
object was to adopt a plan to protect the people against 
antagonists of interests and evils that never did exist. But 
might we not have good reason to suspect those two political 
bodies of having some other object in view than they professed, 
and especially when all those leaders were lawyers, and should 
have been well acquainted with all the legal remedies existing 
under the laws of the Constitution of the United States, for it 
is the law created in the Constitution of the United States for 
prohibiting and restricting all acts of legislation, both of the 
States and the United States, from having any power to pass 



110 

acts to take even the value of a pin from the people, because 
those are the supreme laws, created by the true sovereigns, the 
people themselves. And now; perhaps, I had better show the 
course those pretended friends should and ought to have pur- 
sued, if it had been their intention to do what they professed — 
to protect us against the power claimed by the Abolitionists, 
both as it respects their refusing to give up our African 
property, and their refusmg to allow those who owned that kind 
of property to move into their States or any of their territories. 
These were three of the complaints laid against the Abolitionists 
of the North. Now these charges seem to be justly founded, 
and are a strict violation of the law. When a law or laws are 
violated, what is the custom of all civilized nations but to apply 
to the law for protection. For what purpose are laws made if 
they are not made to protect right against wrong. Now it 
appears that the laws of the Constitution of the United States 
are so clear on all these cases that no misconstruction could be 
placed on the meaning of them, for the Constitution of the 
United States has made no distinction, as far as rights are con- 
cerned, between any members of this Union, and has made 
ample provision for the protection of each and every citizen, as 
far as the Union does or may extend; for the Constitution 
provides that the citizens of each State shall have free ingress 
and egress to and from any other State, and a right to take his 
property with him, and that no imposition duties or restrictions 
shall be laid by one State on the property of the United States, 
or either of them, and that no State should have power tO' 
impair the obligation of contracts. Now all those obligations 
could not be impaired by a State, so this law had already been 
provided, for the protection of every citizen of the United 
States, and there was no need for a convention to make any 
other arrangement. And if there had been any State having 
no power to make a law outside of the State, and could not 
have made any law to act outside Of her own State, nor laws 
impairing the obligation of contracts, what hindered our 
Southern lawyers from knowing it ? This seemed as if their 
object was to make the people dissatisfied with their govern- 
ment, and that no provision had been made for their protection 



Ill 

under the Constitution against the evils of which they coni- 
plaiaed. For they said you could not get a State in a court, 
and that they had a right to make any law they pleased, and 
the people had no course but to obey. 

Now let us see if any of those assertions are true — they are 
like all their other assertions, false. In the first place, the 
United States' Court is created the lawful arbiter of all cases 
arising under the Constitution, and in all cases where a State 
shall be a party that court shall have the original jurisdiction. 
It is said you cannot sue the State. Suppose that I should take 
my servant into one of those States, and some officer seizes my 
servant, or any other person acting under the law of the State, 
I would sue the individual, who took my property from me 
forcibly, in the Court of the United States, for aU the trespasses 
and damages necessary for such an offence. He would be com- 
pelled to come forward and show cause why he has taken my 
property from me, or the case will go against him by default. 
But we will suppose that he attends and produces his authority, 
under the law of his State, I will show by the Constitution of 
the United States that I have a right secured to me, to move 
into any other State and take my property ^vith me, and that 
no imposition duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State 
on the property of the United States or either of them — and 
that was the contract agreed to by all the members of the 
Union ; and, also, no State was to have the power to impair the 
obligation or contracts. 

Now, there cannot be any set of judges or juries found in 
the United States, unless they wilfully and knowingly perjure 
themselves, but would decide that a State had no power to pass 
such a law, and that all such acts were null, void and no law. 
Then down would all the laws go, created by the Abolitionists. ' 

Now, why did our Southern politicians say that a State had a 
right to emancipate, a right to make any law they pleased, and 
a right to take everything from the people ? and why did they 
bring up a bill proposing, as a compromise, that every State 
shoxild have the right to come into the Union with or without 
the privilege of restricting the owners of slave property by 
acts of their majority. No, the Constitution gives no such 



112 

right, for every State has to come into the Union under the 
same agreement as the first. All officers have to take the same 
oath — come under the same agreement with the citizens of each 
State. They shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
ties of the citizens in the several States. 

Now, why did our Southern protectors, bemg lawyers, make 
those assertions entirely in opposition to the proxasions of the 
Constitution of the United States, and every one of them in 
support of abolitionism, using words as strong as can be 
expressed in support of every principle contended for by the 
abolitionists. And, indeed, the very laws these Southern poli- 
ticians created in their conventions, and also assisted in creating 
in Congress, are the very same laws adopted by the abolition- 
ists, and upon v/hich they have been acting all the time. This 
proves that they are acting in concert together, both acting, 
contrary to the principles of the government of the people 
created for their peace and haj^piuess. And if their principles, 
which support abolitionism, were established, they would 
destroy every right, liberty and privilege secured to the people 
imder the Constitution, as well to the North as to the South, 
for they would be brought under the same despotism. Now 
we see that there is a plain and easy way at law to protect us 
and establish our rights to go into any State or territory, and 
that no law nor regulation should be made by any State to dis- 
charge a servant, or person bound to services, due to a citizen of 
another State. But when they were told of a lawful remedy, 
their answer was that they (the Abolitionists) paid no attention 
to law, and how could you enforce a law against such a large 
majority? But you must not forget that the Abolitionists paid 
very good attention to the laws created by the Southern con- 
ventions, and adopted them throughout, and our conventions 
declared that they had the right to do so. But now I think I 
can show that the plan of government under the Union is 
almost the best arranged to protect against such majorities as 
they speak of, that can be fixed by any government. Of course 
I claim the decision of the court in the above cases. 

We will suppose that the State, which passed these laws, 
would not submit to the decisions of the court. The Presi- 



113 

dent is sworn to see the laws of the Union faithfully execu- 
ted, and the Judges are to require the President to execute 
the laws in favor of the citizen, and put him in possession 
of his property, with full damages. If the President re- 
fused to do so, he could be deprived of his commission ; but 
if he aided or assisted the State, in resisting the officer sent 
to execute the law, he would be guilty of treason, and would 
be liable to be tried and punished for treason, as well as 
turned out of office, 

Now, there being but one State to contend with, the offi- 
cers of that State, who offered resistance, would perjure 
themselves, and be guilty of treason ; and if any other State 
should aid or assist, they would be guilty of treason. So 
that, if South Carolina had first claimed the rights that were 
secured to each citizen of the United States, and had those 
rights acknowledged by the Supreme Court, we would have 
been j ustifiable in going into war, if need had required it. 
And, if they had done so, I have no doubt but that the peo- 
ple would have unanimously, North and South, sustained 
the decision of the Court. For the people would have 
known what rights they were entitled to, and see at once, 
that the Abolitionists had no right to take away their Afri- 
can j)roperty, nor any otherproperty, by acts of majorities — • 
nor prevent them from buying any property they should 
choose, and moving that property where they pleased. 

Every citizen has the right to decide for himself what 
kind of property he shall own, and no party rights about it — ■ 
all to b-3 governed by the principle of right ; all agreeing 
to protect each other in their rights, contained in the Con- 
stitution, which, I hope, they still will do, when we get the 
right men in office, who will make their rights known to 
them, which has not been done lately. 

Now, as I have shown, in order to establish what the 
rights of a citizen were, it was not necessary to have any 
majorities in the case, as a case in court in one State would 
establish the right of citizens in every State. And this is 



114 

the way all cases of disputes are settled, in all governments ; 
and the only way in which peace and harmony can be pre- 
served by all classes of the community. But how different 
a way does Mr. Calhoun's philosophy point out. Can any 
good happen under his plans, or any remedy ever be ob- 
tained against any evil ? If it could, it never has. Nothing 
but destruction to life, liberty and property can, or will, fol- 
low. But, suppose the object of these two parties is some- 
thing else than they have professed, and that they have 
some object that they have entirely concealed from all the 
honest portion of the people, both oflBcers and privates. If 
so, let us guess, or let us examine, and see what effect those 
principles, introduced by those Southern Conventions, and 
adopted by the Lincoln Abolitionists, would have upon the 
rights of the people, and what effect it would have on the 
government, and what benefits might be, at the end, con- 
ferred on those head leaders. 

In the first place, this Union, which is the government of 
the people, can never be destroyed, unless you create par- 
ties — and the liberties of the people cannot be taken away 
unless you get them under military power. You must cre- 
ate parties and array them against each other, and make them 
enemies, or believe them enemies, before you can get the 
people to consent to come under military power. Now, all 
this has been done by the philosophy of Mr. Calhoun. He 
makes the State one party, and the people another party. 
He makes the United States government one party and tlie 
State another party. All these parties he arrays, one 
against another — first, on the plea of a very oppressive ta- 
riff; the next, the slave question, and the dispute about set- 
tling territory ; and next, lie places the United States Gov- 
ernment and the State government in a great struggle, and 
as antagonists against^each other. The United States Gov- 
ernment was trying to absorb all the reserved rights of the 
States. Mr. Calljoun sets himself as the great champion, 
together with his party, to defend and protect the States in 



115 

reserved rights, and declared that each State was a separate, 
sovereign and independent government, and had a right to 
decide for herself, choose her own mode and measure of re- 
dress, an^ that no lawful arbiter could be found sufficiently 
impartial to decide against the State, therefore, it was un- 
provided for. 

Now, these principles have been arrayed, brought up and 
argued before the people bj those State protectors. The 
first position they occupied was, to get the people to let 
them call a convention to decide against the oppressive ta- 
riff, wliere the South payed foi-ty dollars out of every hun- 
dred dollars worth of cotton sold, and that it went into the 
pockets of the North, without us receiving any benefit from 
the North. Now, it was principally lawyers, governors and 
members of Congress who spoke to the people, in the most 
exciting manner, all asserting those things to be true, and 
that it was necessary to call a convention and decide on the 
constitutionality of the case. That it was not their inten- 
tion to destroy the Constitution of the United States, but 
to preserve it ; that the course they were going to pursue 
was a peaceable on 3 — it would be settled by law. 

No one would be asked to fight for the remedy — Mr. Mc- 
Duffie would do all the fighting himself. But, as soon as 
they got the consent of the people to call a convention, they 
called for twenty thousand volunteers. They passed an act 
that no duties should be paid in the port of Charleston — 
not one cent for tribute, but millions for defence. Now, all 
those assertions about the people paying forty dollars on the 
hundred dollars worth of cotton sold, were all false, and 
without the shadow of foundation, as I have shown. For 
the Constitution of the United States had provided that no 
tax or duty should be laid on any article exported from any 
State, and that no imposition, duties or restrictions should 
be laid by any State on the property of the United States^ 
or either of them. 

Now, it does seem to me, that those men had some other 



116 

motives in view tlian to protect the people, or preserve^ tlie 
Union, as I will endeavor to show. They also declared that 
if Congress attempted to collect the duties in the port of 
Charleston, they were no longer a member of tlfe Union. 
"When, at the same time, the Constitution of the United 
States provided that Congress should have power to lay on 
duties and taxes on imports sufficient to defray the expenses 
of government. Now, if there had been any wrong in the 
acts of Congress, the United States Courts would have been 
the legal place to go for protection ; and, these men, being 
lawyers and members of Congress, could not be ignorant of 
it. All proves, satisfactorily to my mind, that they h ad 
some other object in view, than to protect the people. For 
the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the 
"United States shall extend to all cases of law and equity, 
arising: out of the Constitution — to all cases where the United 
States should be a party — two or more States another ; in 
all cases in which a State shall be a party, they shall have 
the original jurisdiction. 

!Now, see what a false statement they made, when they 
^asserted tliat there could be no court found sufficiently im- 
partial to decide against a State, and that no court had been 
appointed. Those who asserted those things, being all law- 
yers and members of Congress, could it have been possible, 
that they did not know that there was such a court appoint- 
ed, and that court was appointed expressly to protect the 
people against unconstitutional legislation, either by the 
States, or the United States, as their lawful arbiter? This 
proves very' satisfactorily to me, that they had some other 
object in view, than to protect the people; for they knew 
that a State had not the physical power to enforce her law, 
in opposition to the laws of the Constitution, which one 
they had made was, that no article should enter free in one 
port and pay duty in another ; so that neither Congress nor 
a State had the right to make a law to enter any goods free 
of duty in one port, and collect duties in another. 



117 

Although they professed that their object was to preserve 
the Union, every act they passed in their convention was in 
direct violation of the Constitution ; and, if adopted, in 
place of preserving the people's government, would utterly 
destroy it, and place the people under the most despotic 
government on earth, as I will, in future, show. Now, these 
politicians, when they were asked, how they would enforce 
their decision if the United States refused to submit to the 
decision of the convention, which it was very reasonable 
they would do, as they had tried the case by themselves, 
and for themselves, the opposite party having no chance to 
put up any defence, or have any hearing in the case, and as 
it would be reasonable to suppose, they would be dissatisfied 
with the decision — said that England would help them. 
This language would argue very strongly that, they and 
England had some understanding in the matter. 

Now, all these acts were passed under the pretence of ta- 
riff oppression on cotton, when we never paid one cent of 
tariff duties ; for, as it answers as an article of exchange, 
with which to pay debts, the same as gold and silver, it 
goes free everywhere. But let us see what more they did 
in the Convention of 1832, under the pretence or complaint 
of high duties. Tliey created a different government for the 
State of South Carolina from the one they lived in, under 
the Constitution of the United States, changed the oath of 
allegiance, and attempted to turn out of office every one 
who had taken the oath to support the Constitution of the 
United State3. And, provided that, no one hereafter should 
hold any office of profit or trust, civil or military, (members 
of Legislatures excepted,) unless they would take an oath to 
support and defend the ordinance, and whatever act or acts 
the Legislatures should pass in pursuance of the same. 

Now, it will be seen, that the Legislatures were not to be 
bound by any oath, but all officers were l)ound to support 
and defend any act they passed, in pursuance of the same, 
to the full extent and true meanine; thereof. 



118 

We will now endeavour to see what are the true and most 
important parts of that ordinance, at least the most import- 
ant principles adopted and explained in the ordinance 
and accompanying addresses, to the State of South 
Carolina; also, the same princij^les advocated by John C. 
Calhoun, in his disquisitions on governments. Tliey all 
amount to the same thing, so far as principles are concerned. 
The first principle set forth in the addresses accompanying 
the ordinance is, that in all cases of a palpable and dan- 
gerous infraction of the Federal compact, each State has the 
right to annul and render inoperative, within its limits, all 
such unauthorized acts. ISTow, it will be recollected, that 
the judicial power was to extend and decide all such cases, 
and that there is no such power belonging to a State. Tlie 
addresses provide a difference in the opinions of those of 
our fellow citizens who have hitherto dissented from us, and 
demands from us that we should briefly state the principal 
grounds upon which we place the right and expediency of 
nullification. The address provides that the Constitution of 
the United States is a compact between sovereign States — 
the powers of which government were to operate to a cer- 
tain extent upon the people of those sovereign States aggre- 
gately, and not upon the State authorities. 

First, it is a Confederacy, because in its foundations it 
possesses not one single feature of nationality. The people 
of the separate States as distinct, political communities, rati- 
fied the Constitution — each State acting for itself, and bind- 
ing its own citizens. The act of ratification declares it to 
bind on the States so ratifying. The States are its authors, 
their power created it — their voice clothed the government 
it formed — it is, in reality, their government ^ and the 
Union, of which it is a bond, is a Union of States, and not 
of individuals. Secondly, it is a Confederacy, because the 
extent of the powers of the government depends not upon 
the people of the United States, collectively, but upon the 
State Legislatures. The address further provides that it 



119 

must never be forgotten that it is to the creatinpi;, and not to 
the controlling power, that we are to look for the true char- 
acter of the Federal Government. The true question is, 
who are the parties to the compact? Who created, and 
who can alter and destroy it? Is it the States or the peo- 
ple ? The address asserts that the question has been an- 
swered. The States, as States, ratitied the compact. The 
people of tlie United States, collectively, had no agency in 
its formation. It further asserts that thel-e did not exist 
then, nor has there existed at any time since, such a politi- 
cal body as the people of the United States, It asserts that 
there is not now, nor has there ever been, such a relation 
existing as that of a citizen of New Hampshire and a citi- 
zen of South Carolina, bound together in the same social 
compact. 

The address also asserts that the government of the Unit- 
ed States is strictly a league between several sovereigns. 
Now, Mr. Calhoun's whole arguments, in his disquisitions 
on governments, are entirely to fix and establish the sove- 
reign power in the States, and make the States, or the Leg- 
islatures of the States, the sovereigns over the people. 

For, if the people are not a political body, and had no 
agency in forming the government, they cannot claim any 
protection under it, but must apply to, and depend on the 
Legislatures for whatever they may think proper to let them 
have, as I will further show, in the examination of this ad- 
dress. For the convenient, joint exercise of the sovereignty 
of the States, there must, of necessity, be some common 
agency or functionary. This agency is the Federal Govern- 
ment. The address asserts that the power of the Federal 
Government is wholly derivative — that it possesses no inhe- 
rent sovereignty — that it looks for its power to an exterior 
source, and that source is the States ; that, as the States 
conferred, so the States can take away its powers. All in- 
herent sovereignty is, therefore, in the States. It is the 
moral obligation, alone, which each State has chosen to im- 



120 

poee on herself, and not the want of sovereignty, which re- 
strains her from exercising all those powers. 

We have said thus much on the subject of sovereignty, 
because the only foundation upon which we can erect the 
right of a State to protect its citizens is, that South Caroli- 
na, by the Declaration of Independence, became, and has 
since continued, a free, sovereign and independent State. 
That, as a sovereign State, she has the inherent power to do 
all those acts, which, by the law of nations, any prince or 
potentate may, of right, do; that, like all other independent 
States, she neither has, nor ought she to suffer, any other 
restraint on her sovereign will or pleasure, than those high 
moral obligations, under which all princes and States are 
bound, before God and man, to perform — their solemn 
pledges. 

The inevitable conclusion from what has been said there- 
fore, is, that all cases of compact between sovereigns, who 
are independent, where, from the very nature of things, 
there can be no common judge or umpire, each sovereign 
has a right to judge, as well of the infractions as of the 
mode and measure of redress. So, in the present contro- 
versy between South Carolina and the Federal Government, 
the right belongs solely to her, by her delegates in solemn 
convention assembled, to decide, whether it be violated, and 
what remedy the State should adopt. South Carolina, there- 
fore, cannot, and will not yield to any department of the 
Federal Government, and still less to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. This provision, under the pretence of 
protecting the people against an oppressive tariff, which I 
have shown never did exist, and was all false, claims all 
sovereign power to be fixed in the State Legislatures of each 
State, that ever belonged to any king, prince or potentate. 
This, they pretended to do, from the Constitution, yet they 
acknowledge they do not get the power from the Constitu- 
tion, which is the only truth set forth in their whole state- 
ments. Each sovereign has the right to judge for himself, 



121 

>•'' "Vhether any compact has been broken or violated between 
himself and others. 

Now, the courts of the United States are set apart as the 
lawful arbiter to decide on all cases of law and equity, aris- 
ing under the Constitution. But they assert they will not 
submit to the General Government, which is the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, much less to the Supreme Court 
of the United States. For it would enter into the essence 
of their sovereignty. 

But, let us see, if there is any authority for all this sove- 
reignty, and see if it is not sovereignty created and claimed 
without the shadow of truth or authority. The address, in 
speaking of the division of the powers of the General Gov- 
ernment, says, its authors could never have contemplated 
that the Federal head should regulate the domestic industry 
of a wide and extended country, distinguished above all 
others for the diversity of its interests, pursuits and re- 
sources, in its various sections. It was this acknowledged 
diversity that caused the arrangement of the conjoint and 
separate exercise of sovereign authority — the one to regu- 
late the external concerns, the other to have the absolute 
control over the lives, liberty and property of the people — 
all these rights they claim under the act of nullification. If 
we are asked, upon what grounds we place the right to re- 
sist a particular law of Congress, and yet regard ourselves 
as a consistent member of the Union, we answer, the ground 
of the compact. We do not choose, in a case of this kind, 
to recur to what is called a delegated right — we claim it as 
a constitutional right — not meaning, as some have imagined, 
that we derive the right from the Constitution. In this ac- 
knowledgment, they admit that they do not get the right of 
sovereignty from the Constitution, but claim it by the right 
of inheritance. 

Since these Southern protectors have claimed the right of 
sovereignty over the lives, liberty and property of the peo- 
ple, let us see some more of their claims, while attempting 



122 

to bring us under their militarj power. After calling our 
attention to the glorious achievements of our ancestors, as 
though they were supporting the same government, when 
every principle they adopted was destroying it, they say in 
their address, " We conjure you in this mighty struggle, to 
give your hearts, souls and minds to your injured and op- 
pressed State, and to support her cause publicly and pri- 
vately, with your opinions, your prayers, and your actions. 
But, if appeals such as these prove unavailing, we command 
your obedience to the laws and authority of the State, which 
none can gainsay or resist. We demand it by that allegiance 
Yv'hich is reciprocal with the protection you have received 
from the State. We admit of no obedience to any other 
authority which shall conflict with that primary allegiance 
that every citizen owes to the State of his birth or adop- 
tion." 

There is not, nor has there ever been, any direct or immediate 
allegiance between the citizens of South Carolina and the 
Federal Government — the relation between them is through the 
State. South Carolina having entered into the constitutional 
compact as a separate, independent, political community, as has 
been already stated, has the right to declare an unconstitutional 
act null and void. After her sovereign delaration that the act 
shall not be enforced within her limits ; such a declaration is 
obligatory, as far as her citizens are concerned. The clear right 
of the State is to declare the extent of the obligation — this 
once made, the citizens have no course but to obey. If he 
refuses obedience, so as to bring himself under the displeasure 
of his only and lawful sovereign, and within the severe pains 
and penalties which, by her high, sovereign power, the Legisla- 
tures will not fail to provide in her self defence, the fault and 
f oily will be his own. The address, speaking of the power of 
the Legislature's projects of usurpation, cannot be masked 
under pretences so likely to escape the penetration of select 
bodies of men as of the people at large. "The Legislatures 
will have better means of information. They can discover the 
danger at a distance, and possessing all the organs of civil 



123 

power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt 
a regular plan of resistance." Now, it appears from the 
language of this address that they wished to impress on the 
minds of the people that this plan of protection had not been 
provided by the provisions of the Constitution. 

The address also provides that the citizens owe their alle- 
giance and obedience to the State, because of the protection 
they receive through the State, and that the State will not 
admit of any allegiance to any other authority than the State > 
and those to whom the State transfers them, so they do not 
only claim the allegiance to themselves, but the right to transfer 
them to whomever they please. And as they claim the absolute 
control over the lives, liberty and property of the people, they 
can make slaves of them or sell them to others for slaves. 
This is certamly the most despotic plan of government on the 
face of the globe — adopted by Calhoun and his party, and by 
Lincoln and his party. The Ordinance of the Convention of 
South Carolina, in 1832, adopts principles to secure this power 
in the Legislatures of each State, over the people, as I will 
next show. 

But in order to enable the reader to understand more clearly 
the error I wish to expose, embodied in this ordinance, I wish 
to show clearly that the word sovereignty does not belong to nor 
can be properly applied to the Legislatures of Congress, nor to 
the Legislatures of States, nor acts passed by majorities of 
either of them. For the acts of majorities, and the legislation 
of Congress and of States, are prohibited, by the Constitution 
of the United States, from having . any power but what is 
expressly named, as I have shown, in the description of the 
formation of our government by the prohibitions there set 
forth, and that both those Legislatures are only the agents of 
the people, and not sovereign. All their powers are limited and 
restricted to making laws to protect all the members of the 
Union in their rights against wrong. The people have already 
declared what rights they shall be entitled to, and have not left 
it to the Legislatures nor to Conventions to say what their 
rights shall be or shall not be. 

This States Rights party makes out that in the formation of 



124 

their government they appointed judges and juries to decide 
where disputes arise between themselves or their agents, swear- 
ing every one in office, from the constable to the President, to 
support and defend the principles they had already adopted. 
Not any acts of conventions or separate States should decide, 
for if that was the case, there could be no Union nor standard , 
nor solid foundation for a government to stand on. It would 
be like the house built upon the sand, which fell down during 
the first rain. j^It would be like a man buying a wagon to go 
a wagoning, but would not fix any breast chains or lock chains. 
He did very well on level ground when he kept the horses all 
pulling together, but when he had to go down hill the wagon 
would run over the wagoner and all the horses. If he should 
put the people before the wagon it would run over them, and 
if he put them behind the wagon it would run off and leave 
them. This is the kind of government the States Rights party 
are attempting to make for the people. The people would have 
no checks against the will of the Legislatures, nor against acts 
passed by them, no checks against acts passed by conventions, 
because they said the people had no government nor agency in 
forming the government, and that they had no course but to 
obey their sovereign, and if they refused obedience, so as to 
bring themselves under the displeasure of their only and lawful 
sovereign, that the Legislature, in her high and sovereign 
capacity, would not fail to provide for her self-defence, the fault 
and folly would be their own. 

This is the kind of government they offer the people under 
the States Rights doctrine, introduced by the Convention of 
South Carolina, in 1832. Then the Ordinance went on to 
secure this power over the people, and the Abolitionists of the 
North, and Lincoln, have, as I will show hereafter, adopted this 
game platform. This makes me think they are both acting in 
concert together, and that their object, from the beginning, has 
been to destroy the people's government, so that they can bring 
the people imder a monarchical government, and place them- 
selves in a situation where they can rol) and plunder the people 
to any extent they please, and fix on themselves princely for- 
tunes, so that they could live in princely royalty and grandeur. 
As I will endeavour to show you, their plan is well adaj^ted to 



125 

accomplish it, if they are not checked, and that immediately, 
for here is their standard of principles laid down. That every 
State is a separate sovereign State, under no obligation only 
their own will. There could be no Union under that principle 
if adopted it would destroy the Union, it would destroy every 
provision of the Constitution, and place the people under their 
State Rights doctrine, and would divide the government of the 
United States into as many different governments as there are 
States, and leave the people's government without any combi" 
nation or National power to protect themselves against any 
formidable enemy, and also against legislative power, claimed 
by the Legislatures by their acts of majorities, and if they 
could get the military power would soon fix the people in a 
situation that they cannot have any course but to obey. 

The Ordinance provides that the Constitution of the United 
States, as a compact between sovereign States, was a govern- 
ment to operate, to a certain extent, upon the people of those 
sovereign States aggregately, and not upon State authorities- 
Those are the acts of the Ordinance, for the purpose of forcing 
both the people of South Carolina and all others acting under 
the authority of the United States from establishing their 
powers assumed by this State over the people of South Carolina. 
In this convention they had the right to decide for themselves 
choose their own mode and measure of redress, and that no 
lawful arbiter could be found sufficiently impartial to decide 
against them, therefore there was none provided. For this 
Ordinance first declares that Congress has parsed tariff acts 
which are unauthorized by the Constitution, and that they are 
null and void, not binding on this State, its officers or citizens, 
and all pr omises, contracts and obligations made or entered 
into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the 
duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which 
shall be hereafter in pursuance thereof, are and shall be held 
null and void. 

The Ordinance here undertakes to n;le and govern the acts 
of Congress without law, and contrary to the law of the Con- 
stitution, which provides that the Supreme Court of the United 
States should extend to all cases of law and equity arising 
under the Constitution of the United States, and in all cases 



126 

where a State was a party, was to have the original jurisdiction. 
But in place of going to that court for protection, this conven- 
tion ti'ies the case for themselves and by themselves, beimg but 
one party. Was there ever before any such a case claimed to 
be law, where one party were to sit for themselves and decide 
for themselves, without giving the other party a chance to put 
up a defence, or have a hearing in the case. If that system of 
government were adopted, each party would get a decision 
very easy for themselves, but who would they get to enforce 
it ? If it could not be enforced, it could be of no use. 

The next part of the Ordinance .was to prevent all the con- 
stituted authorities, of both the State and the United States, 
from enforcing any law that had or shall be made against their 
decision. It provides that it shall not be lawful for any of the 
constituted authorities of this State, or of the United States, to 
enforce the payment of duties imposed by said acts. Now, if 
they could not be collected by any of the constituted authori- 
ties, it left no other way but by force of arms. The Constitu- 
tion provides that no article shall enter free in one port and 
pay duty in another, that the duties shall be uniform throughout 
the United States, yet they pretend they were acting according 
to the authority of the Constitution. Now, if that principle 
were adopted as a standard of government, the United States 
could not have any security in raising one dollar to defray the 
expenses of Government, because any State could prevent 
Congress from collecting one cent at any time they saw proper, 
and defeat all .the designs of the Constitution, where it provides 
that Congress shall have power to lay on duties and excises to 
pay the expenses of government. According to their principles, 
a State could prevent Congress from discharging the duties 
assigned to them at any time they j^leased. That would be not 
only impairing the obligation of contract, but would prevent 
Congress from paying off the officers serving the people under 
the Constitution of the United States, and of course would 
destroy it, and would deprive the people from any protection 
against the action of legislation or any other power they claim 
over the people. 

"It shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures 
and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this 



127 

ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement, and arrest the ope- 
ration of said acts and part of acts of the Congress of the 
United States, within the limits of this State, from and after the 
jBrst day of February next ; and it shall be the duty of all other 
constituted authorities, and of all persons residing within the 
limits of this State, and they are required and enjoined to obey 
and give eflfect to this ordinance, and such act or acts and 
measures of the legislature as may be passed or adopted m 
obedience thereto." 

Now, it will be seen that this States Rights doctrine claims 
the supreme power over all the acts of Congress, over the con- 
stituted government of the people, and over the people them- 
selves, and commands their obedience and allegiance to them, 
not only what'acts they Aai?e passed, but whatever acts they way 
pass. Now, the Constitution provides that the citizen shall be 
secure in his person, papers, houses and effects, and that security 
is to be inviolably preserved, and that no State shall have power 
to impair their obligation. 

Now, if there had been any unlawful legislation on the 
part of Congress, the Court of the United States was the 
place to have tried the case, for that was the place the Con- 
stitution had fixed, outside of all legislation or acts of ma- 
jorities, and all agents of the people, so that those who made 
laws should not decide for themselves. 

Tliose courts were provided for the express purpose of 
protecting the people against unjust legislation and acts of 
majorities, both by Congress and Legislatures of States. The 
President's veto was another check — but three-fourths of 
the votes of Congress could overrule the veto — yet the 
courts could still overrule Congress, President and all, for, 
it is their business to know the Constitution, and protect 
them in all the rights secured to them in their States, and 
all over the United States. 

Now, the ordinance says that, "in no case of law or 
equity, decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be 
drawn in question the authority of this ordinance, or the 
validity of such act or acts of the Legislatures as may be 



128 

passed for the purpose of giving eflect thereto, or the valid- 
ity of the aforesaid acts of Congress imposing duties, shall 
any appeal be taken or allowed, to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. Nor shall any copy of the record be 
permitted or allowed for that purpose. And, if any such 
appeal shall be attempted to be taken, the courts of this 
State shall proceed to execute and enforce their judgments, 
according to the law and usage of the State, without refer- 
ence to such an attempted appeal ; and the persons attempt- 
ing to take such an appeal, may be dealt with as for con- 
tempt of court." 

Kow, all those acts passed in the ordinance are strictly in 
opposition to the provisions of the Constitution, and, if es- 
tablished as the standard of government, would destroy all 
the provisions of the Constitution, adopted by the people, 
and leave the people no course but to obey. Because, if 
you destroy the authority of the courts, you destroy the 
whole government ; for it is the way in all governments in 
which the people are put in possession of their rights, when 
they are denied them by others. But if we, the people, go 
to dispute this sovereign Legislature's right of having the 
absolute control over our lives, liberty aud property, and 
wish to carry our case before the United States for protec- 
tion, this ordinance provides that "the citizen shall not take 
an appeal, nor copy of an appeal, and if he attempts so to 
do, this sovereign Legislature will not, in their high and 
sovereign power, fail to provide for herself, and treat him 
with pains and penalties, as for contempt of the courts, 
which they have established over all the constituted author- 
ities of the United States." In order, more fully, to secure 
to them this power, claimed for the Legislature over the 
people, they provided further in their ordinance that, " all 
persons now holding any office of honor, profit or trust, 
civil or military, under the State, (members of the Legisla- 
ture excepted,) shall, within such time and in such manner 
as the Legislature shall prescribe, take an oath, well and 



129 

truly to obey, execute and enforce this ordinance, and such 
act or acts of the Legislature as may be passed in pursuance 
thereof." 

JSTow, it will be seen, that the legislators of this State are 
sovereigns, and have no oath to take, but act according to 
their own will. But all the officers of the State, both civil 
and military, are to be sworn to enforce and execute this or- 
dinance, and whatever acts the Legislature may pass in pur- 
suance of the same. It provides further, that on the neglect 
or omission of any such person or persons so to do, his or 
their office or offices shall be forthwith vacated, and shall 
be filled up as if such person or persons were dead, or 
had resigned. And hereafter, no person elected to any 
office of profit, civil or military, (members of the Legisla- 
ture excepted,) shall, until the Legislature shall otherwise 
provide and direct, enter on the execution of his office, or be 
in any respect competent to discharge the duties thereof, 
until he shall, in like manner, have taken a similar oath ; 
and no juror shall be empanneled in any of the courts of 
this State in any cause, which shall be in question of the or- 
dinance, or any acts of the Legislature passed in pursuance 
thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the usual oath, 
have taken an oath that he will, well and truly, obey, exe- 
cute and enforce this ordinance to the full extent and true 
meaning of the same. 

Now, it will be seen that, " in no case wherein is di-awn in 
question the authority of the ordinance, or any acts passed by 
the Legislature in pursuance thereof, that no judge or jury 
should be permitted to sit on the trial unless they were first 
sworn to decide against the person that disputed their authori- 
ty, and in favor of their authority — which was, that the Legis- 
lature had, or should have, the absolute control over the lives, 
liberty and property of the people — which was everything that 
could be thought of or named." 

Now, let us see how this principle differs from the agreement 
9 



130 

entered into,' by the people under the Union, in the Articles of 
Confederation. 

There the people entered into a firm league of friendship 
with each other to support and defend each other against all 
attacks made against them, or any of them, on account of reli- 
gion, sovereignty or any other pretence whatever — which cov- 
ers everything that could be thought of or named. Now, those 
provisions are a part of the Constitution, where the people 
agreed to protect each other in everything that could be thought 
of or named. 

The ordinance goes on to provide, " that the Legislature of 
the State shall have power to take everything from the people 
that can be thought of or named — both life, liberty and prop- 
erty, and leave the people no course biat to obey." 

All this power they assume under separate State Rights sove- 
reignty. Now, all this time, when Mr. Calhoun and his party, 
like Mr. Lincoln and his party pretended that their object 
was to preserve the Union, and not destroy it, every plan they 
adopted was strictly in opposition to the provisions of the Con- 
stitution. 

Lincoln pretends he is trying to preserve the Union, when 
every act he does is destroying it, for he and his party have vi- 
olated every provision of the Constitution. The citizen of each 
State was to have free ingress and egress, to and from, any 
other State, and take his property with him. No imposition 
duties or restrictions should be laid by any State upon the pro- 
perty of the United States, or any of them. No law or regu- 
lation shall be made by any State, to discharge from service, a 
servant, or person bound to service, due a citizen of another 
State; but, if a servant, or person bound to service, shall escape 
to another State, they shall be bound to deliver up such ser- 
vant, or person bound to service, due a citizen of another State. 

Now, every one of those provisions Lincoln and his party 
have violated, and acted in opposition to the provisions of the 
Constitution. The Constitution provides that citizens shall be 
secure in their persons, papers and effects, and that security was 
to be preserved inviolable ; and that no State should have power 



131 

to pass an ex post facto law, nor law imparing the obligation of 
contracts. 

What has Lincoln and his Abolition party been doing for 
many years ? In place of protecting the citizens and making 
them secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects, they 
have, by acts of Legislatures, and acts of majorities, robbed the 
people of their African property, and prohibited them from the 
privileges held by other States, which right is secured to them 
by the Constitution. This is what I call passing ex post facto 
laws, and laws imparing the obligation of contracts, and adopt- 
ing the same plan of government that Davis and his secession- 
ists have, to take away the rights of the people by acts of legis- 
lation and acts of majorities. 

Again, Lincoln and his Abolition party have declared that 
the Southern members of the, Union who own African property', 
shall not take their African property into any of their States, 
or move with it into any of the Territories of the United States, 
of which property they are the joint OAvners, and furnished 
their joint share of money and blood to obtain. They now say 
they will take from us all this right secured to us by the Con- 
stitution ; and, if we do not remain in the Union with them,. 
Lincoln and his Abolitionists will kill and rob us of everything 
we possess. 

Now, this is the principle upon which Lincoln and his party 
are acting, merely because he thinks he has the brute force to 
do it. This will show that Davis and Lincoln assume and con- 
tend for the same political power, for, by acts of legislation and 
acts of majorities, they pass over the Constitution the same as 
though it did not exist — each claiming the same power at the 
heads of departments. The Davis secession party, at the com- 
mencement of their State Rights doctrine, pretended that they 
were trying to preserve the Union ; but, since then, have de- 
clared themselves out of the Union. It is Liberty, Freedom 
and Independence they pretend to be contending for, so it is 
for themselves to have the absolute control over both the lives, 
liberty and property of the people. And Lincoln pretends that 
he is preserving the Union, while, at the same time, he is de- 
stroying every provision of the Constitution. It would seem 



132 

from what I have shovm, that these political chieftains have 
been acting imder a great mass of ignorance, if their object was 
what they professed to the people ; but this seems impossible. 
For these two military chieftains are men of great intellect — so 
are their colleagues, who are to be co-partners with them in the 
division of power, that I imagine it is to be divided among the 
leading characters in that way. I can discover great sense in 
their plan of carrying out the destruction of the people's gov- 
ernment, and also in fixing a plan to secure to themselves the 
government over the people. 

Now, as I have shown, under the government of the people, 
in the Constitution of the United States, each citizen was enti- 
tled to every privilege that any other citizen had ; there was no 
distinction made. All the members of the Union were to be 
protected on any account whatever, so far as justice was con- 
cerned. The Constitution left no foundation for parties. This 
Union was to be perpetual, and never could be destroyed, ua- 
less parties were created ; and this could not be done without 
putting false constructions on the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion, or some political leader misleading the people, and they, 
through ignorance, following the advice of their deceivers. 

As I have said, this government never could have been de- 
stroyed without parties, and the liberties of the people never 
could be taken from them, unless by getting them under mili- 
tary power. Now, you cannot get people under military power 
imless parties are brought into conflict with each other. Davis 
and his party, and Lincoln and his party have managed their 
part to bring about this conflict, when there was no necessity, 
to settle those disputes in any other way than by law, as I have 
shown. Those political chieftains were all lawyers, and men of 
such intellect, that they could not be so ignorant as not to know 
that. But, if their object was to destroy the government of 
the people, that would not answer their purpose — but let their 
-object be what it may, both their principles are in direct oppo- 
sition to the Constitution, and would destroy every provision 
in it I will now attempt to show that the plan of government 
adopted by Mr. Calhoun, and also by the Abolition party, could 
not make any other kind of government than a king's and era- 



133 

peror's. He contended that every State was separate, sove- 
reign and ind ependent — had the right to decide for themselvesj 
choose their own mode and manner of redress, and under no 
obligation but their own will, like any king or prince; that they 
had the absolute control over the lives, liberty and property of 
the people — the clear right to declare the extent of the obliga- 
tion, and, when once declared, the citizens had no course but to 
obey. But if they refused obedience, so as to bring themselves 
under the displeasure of their only and lawful sovereign, and 
within the severe pains and penalties, the Legislature, in her 
high and sovereign capacity, will not fail to provide for her self- 
defence, their fault and folly will be their own. 

Now, this ordinance of 1832 leaves no doubt, where and who 
they make the sov ereign over the people, and they claim more 
power over the people than any king, prince or potentate in 
any civilized country. The African chief alone, that I know of, 
claims such powers, who eats whom he pleases, kills whom he 
pleases, takes from whom he pleases, and gives to whom he 
pleases. If they establish this power over the people, there is 
nothing to hinder those military chieftains from doing the same. 
Now, let us see what provisions they made to secure the power 
over the people they have claimed. Now, all this power they 
claimed, they derived from the ordinance, and it is explained in 
the ordinance, and by the address accompanying it. They pro- 
vide that in no case where Avas drawn in question the authority 
of the ordinance, or any act or acts of the Legislature, in pur- 
suance of the same, shall any judge or jury be permitted to sit 
on the trial, unless they would take the oath, well and truly to 
obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, and whatever act or 
acts the Legislature should pass, to the full extent thereof. 

Now, this oath of allegiance was changed from supporting 
the Constitution of the United States to supporting any act the 
Legislatures might pass, in pursuance of the ordinance that gave 
the legislative bodies such power over the people. Next, they 
provide that in no case where shall be drawn in question the au - 
thority of the ordinance, or any act or acts of the Legislatures, 
in pursuance of the same, shall an appeal, or copy of an appeal 
be allowed to the Supreme Court of, the United States. But, 



134 

if any appeal, or copy of an appeal, should be attempted to be 
taken, the person attempting to take such an appeal, or copy of 
an appeal, shall be dealt with as for contempt of court. They 
also i^rovided that the Legislature should have power to fix a, 
time, and require every officer in the State of South Carolina to 
take a similar oath ; and, if any officer refused to take the oath 
his office should be null and void, as though he were dead, or 
had resigned. They then provided for filling up such offices, 
and, if no one should offer to serve, the Legislature would ap- 
point, and if those appointed would not serve, they were to be 
fined and imprisoned, and deprived of holding office for life. 
They also provided that there should be no appeal from a court- 
martial. * 

Now, the Constitution of the United States provides that the 
military power shall be subordinate to the civU power ; but, you 
see this State Right secession sovereignty establishes the milita- 
ry above the civil , for when there is no appeal from any court, 
that establishes that court above all others. Now, those State 
Right sovereigns pretended, in all their proceedings, that their 
object was to preserve the Union, while, at the same time, they 
were willfully and wittingly destroying every vestige of it. 

Now, if the Legislature has the absolute control over the 
life, liberty and property of the people, and a right to make any 
law they pleased, and under no obligation but their own will, 
as the ordinance declares, they were not bound by any oath, 
but left free to make any law, and the people were to have no 
course but to obey. And, having a military court, from which 
there could be no appeal, they could pass laws to inflict all pun- 
ishments through these courts, and put any one to death under 
military power. They also provided that the Legislature should 
have power, from time to time, to provide suitable oaths for of- 
ficers and citizens to take, and also to define what should con- 
stitute treason against the State, and the penalty thereto an- 
nexed. 

The defence they put up was, if any one spoke against any 
act the Legislature passed, or resisted it in any manner what- 
ever, the penalty should be death, without the benefit of the 
clergy, which means, witliout any chance of being reprieved. 



135 

Kow, as there was no appeal from the decision of a court-mar- 
tial, and they had secured to themselves the right to make any 
law they pleased, they being under no obligation but their own 
will. If the people spoke against any law they passed, or re- 
sisted it in any manner whatever, the penalty was death, with- 
out any chance to be reprieved. All judges and jurors that 
should be permitted to sit on the trial, should first be bound by 
oath, to well and truly obey, execute and enforce the ordinance, 
and whatever act or acts passed by the Legislature, to the full 
intent and meaning thereof 

Now, the Legislature, having the power to pass any law they 
pleased, can place the punishment of any crime they think fit in 
the hands of the military court, and through that, inflict death 
on any one they please. They further provide that, no indict- 
ment under this act shall be subject to traverse. They further 
provide, that on the trial of any suit or action, in which shall 
be brought in question the ordinance aforesaid, or these acts, 
the same may be given in evidence, without being specially 
plead, so that, according to this act, this case might be taken 
into the military court and tried, without your having a chance 
to put off the trial, to obtain witnesses for your defence, if you 
were ever so innocent of the offence brought against you, and 
put you to death without allowing you a chance to plead your 
cause. I now ask, does so great a despotism exist oyer any 
people on the face of the globe, or even among the heathens ? 
If there is, I do not know where it is. All this they did, pre- 
tending they were preserving the Constitution, or, rather the 
reserved rights of the States, when they were destroying every 
security of any right to either life, liberty or property, and 
fixing a plan of securing to themselves the control over the 
lives, liberty and property of the people. 

Now, those politicians not only made these claims over the 
people, but knew how to secure the power. And when you 
take this view of the matter, you will see they have acted with 
great wisdom to deceive the people; for under the pretence of 
protecting the people in their rights, they have organized a 
system of government that has secured and taken to themselves 
the absolute control over the lives, liberties and property of the 



136 

people, as I have shown, all under the pretence, first, of pro- 
tecting you against an oppressive tai-iff on cotton, when, as I 
have shown, they never paid a cent of duties at home or 
abroad. 

The next was under the pretence of protecting the people 
against Abolitionists. Under these two pleas they urged the 
people to let them call a convention, to devise means and ways 
to prevent these dreadful calamities that were about to fall on 
us. And in place of telling the people that the Constitution of 
the United States was the Union, and had provided laws to 
protect every member of the Union, North and South, and had 
prohibited all acts of legislation and acts of majorities from 
having any power to emancipate even the value of a pin from 
them, and the Courts of the United States woiild protect them, 
they came back and told us that it should not be denied but 
that a State had a right to emancipate, and that there should be 
non-intervention on the part of Congress. This is what they 
told us, and being all lawyers they ought to have known better. 
This they did in Cincinnati — but in the next convention they 
declared that they had the right to take everything from the 
people, and were imder no obligation but their own will, and 
the right to decide for themselves, choose their own mode and 
measure of redress. Now, if every State is under no other 
obligation than its own will,' there could be no union nor 
agreement between different States. For each State having a 
right to decide for herself, and choose her own mode and 
measure of redress, there could be no lawful arbiter found 
sufficiently impartial to decide against her, therefore she was 
unprovided for. 

Now, this principle, if adopted, would establish as many dis- 
tinct governments in the United States as there are States, all 
under no obligation but their own will, without any lawful agent 
to settle any disputes between them, each one to decide for 
herself, choose her own mode and measure of redress. If this 
principle was established as a standard of government, it would 
place us under the same system of government under which the 
heathen chieftains live, and would prevent us from having any 
combination of physical power, by which to defend ourselves 



137 

against any formidable enemy, and we would become an easy 
prey to them. Now, how any man could set forth such a bare- 
faced and false construction, without one shadow of foundation ^ 
is astonishing to me. And how so many men could believe 
them is still more astonishing. It seems to me that they must 
have been acting through the counsel of kings and potentates, 
and employed to overthrow this great and happy government. 
They also asserted that the Government of the United States 
possessed not one feature of nationality, and that it was a union 
of States and not of individuals. Now, if that were true, we 
could not have any nationality, for no officer ia any State is 
bound by oath or affirmation to support and defend the Con- 
stitution of any State but his own. But, on the contrary, every 
officer in every State is bound by oath or affirmation that he 
will defend and support the Constitution of the United States, 
notwithstanding any constitution or law in any State to the 
contrary. Now, it will be seen that there is no union between 
State authorities, for the oath of every officer in every State is 
that he shall disregard any constitution or law in any State, if 
it conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. This 
shows clearly that no sovereignty was fixed in the Legislatures 
of States. But if we would establish it as a union of State 
authorities, we would not have one feature of nationality, 
because the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
State shall enter into any treaty or compact with another State 
or foreign power. 

Now, if we were to adopt Mr. Calhoun's principles, we could 
not enter into any treaty or compact with foreign powers, there- 
fore we could not enter into any treaty of commerce with our 
own States, nor any other power. I do not see how Mr. Cal- 
houn and his followers can assert that it was a union of States, 
and that State authorities were sovereign, under all the prohi- 
bitions and restrictions on the part of a State, for the word 
sovereign will not apply to any other than those who are under 
no other obligation than their own will. Now, the people of 
the United States, under the Constitution of the United States, 
have adopted it as their expressed will, as well as the principles 
embodied in it, and all agree with each other, and no one else , 



138 

that they Avill be governed by them, and that they will govern 
all others by them, thus forming the great physical and national 
body for protection at home and abroad, as I have already 
shown. 

Mr. Calhoun also asserted that, under the Constitution of the 
United States, there were two governments — one Federal, the 
other State. He said the powers not delegated to the Federal 
G-overnment were reserved to the States ; that as far as the 
power delegated to the Federal Government was concerned, 
they were sovereign, and as far as the reserved rights of the 
States are concerned, they are sovereign, and each had the right 
to decide for themselves as to the extent of their power. The 
State government had the right to decide for herself, choose 
her own mode and measure of redress, and that the Federal 
Government would try to absorb all the reserved rights of the 
States, and by construction, encroach on the reserved rights of 
the States, as each government had the right to decide for 
itself, no lawful arbiter being competent to settle the dispute. 
The State would remonstrate, raise one party against another, 
and bring up a war of parties. At last they come into conflict 
with each other, the military chieftain at last takes the govern- 
ment into his hands, and the people, during these times, will be 
brought into so much distress that they will be willing to 
crouch imder any government to get out of it, and it be 
obliged to be a monarchical government of some kind. 

Now, all those principles, of which Mr. Calhoun speaks, are 
introduced by himself, and in direct opposition to the provi- 
sions of the Constitution, for there is no such a thing as a 
sovereign Federal Government nor a sovereign State Govern- 
ment, nor is there any power in legislation, or acts of parties or 
majorities, but what is given by the Constitution. The Consti- 
tution i« a wall that none can legally pass over, and there is no 
party, either State or United States, that has a right to decide 
for itself. But the people have appointed a judicial power, 
apart from all law making power, who had the right to decide 
on all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution. 
This is the court Mr. Calhoun wanted to do away with, and is 
the court our State Right sovereigns have done away with, for 



139 

it entered riglit into the essence of theii' sovereignty, so that 
they could not have the absolute control over the lives, liberty 
and property of the people. j 

Now, all those principles, introduced by Mr. Calhoun, would 
answer two purposes if adopted, one would destroy, effectually; 
all the provisions of the Constitution, and the other would be a 
plan by which his followers could create parties and bring them 
into conflict, so that they could bring the people under military 
power. For, as I have said before, the government, under the 
Constitution, cannot be destroyed, unless you create parties, 
and the liberties of the people cannot be taken from them 
unless you get them under military power. 

You will ask me, perhaps, why those politicians took so much 
pains to fix so nmch power in the Legislatures over the lives, 
liberty and property of the people? Will they leave that 
power in their hands ? I tell you no! Their object is to fix a 
king in every State, with all the power conferred on each king, 
and then make two emperors perhaps — Lincoln emperor at the 
North, and Davis emperor at the South. 

I draw my opinions from the provisions of the Ordinance, 
and Mr. Calhoun's language in his book. The Ordinance pro- 
vides that we will not admit of any allegiance to any other 
authority than the State and those to whom the State transfers 
that allegiance. You may see from this provision of the 
Ordinance that they provide for the Legislatures, power to 
transfer their allegiance to some one else. And as Mr. Calhoun, 
in his work, recommends to have two Presidents, one at the 
North and the other at the South, so that the Southern Presi- 
dent could veto the acts of the North, and the Northern Presi- 
dent could veto the acts of the South, and in that way each 
President could protect the interests of his own constituents. 
But Mr. Calhonn was not such a fool as to suppose that the 
veto of the President against the acts of the Legislature, or 
against the other President, could give security as a protection 
against wrong. But he could not get along any way but by 
parties. He asserted that the Government of the United 
States did not possess one feature of nationality. 

Now, no government can get along without nationality. No 



140 

government could enter into a commercial treaty or compact 
with any other power, for there is no such a thing as a govern- 
ment having commercial intercourse with another government 
unless they enter into a treaty with each other, and agree to 
the terms upon which they will carry on this intercourse with 
each other. I think the United States did enter into treaties 
with nearly all nations of the world, and not a word was said 
about States Rights sovereignty in the treaties. So I think 
Mr. Calhoun has been mistaken about the United States not 
having a single feature of nationality about it; but let us see if 
his whole object was not to destroy the people's government, 
and bring them under the worst monarchical despotisms on 
earth. 

Now, as Mr. Calhoim recommends two Presidents, I will 
reasonably come to the conclusion that there might be two 
emperors. He and his followers assert that the interests of the 
two sections are directly opposed to each other, that whatever 
is to the interest of the South is an injury to the North, and 
whatever benefits the North is an injury to the South, which I 
have already shown to be false. 

But such arguments answer to create parties, if his principles 
and arguments were true that there ought to be two Presi- 
dents, we would need two emperors. But, after all, the 
arrangements under his party protections and combinations of 
different interests, he came to the conclusion that there would 
be brought about a conflict between this great combination of 
parties, every one trying to take care of his own interest with- 
out any regard for the interest of others. In his whole argu- 
ments he never reasons on what is right or wrong, what is just 
or unjust, but arrays his whole arguments about what different 
interests are and all antagonists are, and that those antagonists 
will bring about a conflict that the successful general will take 
the reins of government in his own hands, and that the result 
■will be that the people will be brought into such great distress 
tliat they will be willing to crouch under any government to be 
released from the distress they will be in, and the result will be 
that a monarchical government will be established over the 
United States. Mr. Calhoun might foretell what would take 



141 

place when he had laid the whole plan to bring those events to 
pass. The first thing to be done was to make the people believe 
that all their interests were opposed to each other, when it was 
only every one's interest to jjrotect each other against wrong. 
But I will endeavour to show under what kind of principles they 
are preparing to bring us. As Mr. Calhoun declares that the 
United States does not possess one feature of nationality, there 
are but three ways in which nationality can be established. 
One is by kings, the other by emperors, and the third is by 
such a government as the United States, where the people all 
enter into a written agreement ■with each other, adopting those 
principles agreed upon by all as the standard of government, 
agreeing all to be governed by them, and to govern all others 
by them, and by that way they form a combination of national 
and physical power to protect and defend each other against all 
attacks made against us or any of us, on account of religion 
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. 

Now, in the face of these truths, Mr. Calhoun declared that 
the United States had not a feature of nationality, but if Mr. 
Calhoun's statement was true, that it was a government of 
State Legislatures, and each State Legislature under no obliga- 
tion but their own will, there could not have been any nation- 
ality in the State governnaents, for the Constitution of the 
United States provides that no State shall enter into any treaty 
or compact with any other State, nor with a foreign power. 
So that if Mr. Calhoun's statement were true, no treaty could 
have been entered into, because, without nationality, none can 
be entered into with any other government. It is necessary 
that nationality should exist. 

The reason why emperors exist, or are created, is because 
there may be provinces which could not have a combination 
sufficiently strong to defend themselves against a formidable 
enemy, so that it might become necessary to enter into a 
national agreement to defend each other, and transact their 
nationality jointly. 

After a treaty of commerce is entered into between two 
governments, it is necessary to have a consul in every port 
where we trade, to protect our citizens in their rights secured 



142 

by the treaty, and this causes the national expenses to be very 
heavy where the numbers of people are few. Now, if we 
make the Legislatures of each State sovereign, and they will 
not admit of any other allegiance than to the Legislatures, and 
those to whom they may transfer their allegiance, it would be 
reasonable, as they could not have any nationality under the 
Constitution of the United States, that they would establish 
their nationality through an emperor. So, you, see this founda- 
tion of separate State legislation is wisely fixed to bring ua 
under an emperor, and this sovereign Legislature has the clear 
right to declare the extent of the obligation, and the people 
were left no course but to obey, and if any one spoke against 
any act of the Legislature, or resisted it in any manner what- 
ever, the penalty was death, without any chance to be reprieved, 
and if their authority was disputed, they could seize you and 
try you without allowing you a chance to put off your case to 
obtain witnesses to prove your innocence, or even hearing your 
defence. So that if any villain was to have a spite at another, 
he could report him to the courts of those State Rights Legis- 
latures and swear falsely and have him put to death, if ever so 
innocent of the charge. Now, if they will create such laws 
before they fully secure themselves in the power over the 
people, what will they not do if we suffer them to establish 
themselves. Now here is the deplorable condition we are in^ 
if we sustain Lincoln's abolition power, or the Davis power it 
is the same, for both contend for State Rights, and the right to 
take everything from the people, and they are both exercising 
the same authority over their lives, liberties and property, both 
are forcing the people from their homes and families. Many a 
wife and large family of little children are left almost in a 
starving condition, while her husband is forced to the army to 
gratify these wicked traitors to humanity, liberty and their 
country. 

Now, I can see no use they could have for introducing sepa- 
rate States Right power over the lives, liberty and property of 
the people, nor can I see any use to which it can be applied, 
unless it is to destroy the nationality of the people, acting un- 
der the Constitution, and to establish an emperor in its place — 



143 

each emperor or king having it in his power to make any law 
he pleases, and the people have no course hut to obey, or be 
put to death by a military court. Now, to take this view of 
the subject, every principle adopted by Calhoun would answer 
to bring us under an Eniperor, and destroy every right, liberty 
or privilege secured by the Constitution. 

And, instead of the people living uilder the best government 
that has ever been created on the face of the globe, and the 
most securely protected in every right, liberty or privilege, the 
human famUy ought to enjoy, if they establish their govern- 
ment over us, we will, of all people under the shining sun, be 
the worst destroyed. 

They have gone on with their plan, unresisted, and almost 
unsuspected, until they have very nearly accomj)lished their 
whole object. The Davis and Lincoln combinations have ac- 
complished two of the most important points to carry out the 
destruction of the Constitution, and all the rights and liberties 
therein secured, for they have, in the first place, arrayed parties 
against each other, the only way in which the Union could be 
destroyed — all by falsehood and misconstruction by the Cal- 
houn party and by Lincoln's Abolition party, passing unconsti- 
tutional acts. By the manoeuvring of these two parties com- 
bined, they have succeeded in creating parties, and, by these 
parties, they have succeeded in bringing the people into conflict 
with each other, who wished no harm to each other, and had no 
desire to injure each other. But, by this military power, they 
are compelled to kill each other like brutes, and destroy prop- 
erty in every way they can, by building ships and establishing 
navies, and issuing treasury notes sufficient to bankrupt the 
United States. 

Now, by adopting these parties, it enabled them to bring on 
a conflict, and that gave each party an excuse for raising a mili- 
tary force, so that they have succeeded ia getting the people 
under military power, which they cannot resist, and from which 
they cannot recover, but in one way, (that I can see,) without 
making a sacrifice, which I do not wish to see them make. And 
there is but one way, tha^j I can see, in which peace can be made 
honorably. We need not expect peace to be made by the Lin- 



144 

coin and Davis party combinations, if their object is really to 
destroy the government of the people, and force them imder an 
emperor, which, every principle adopted by both parties, would 
indicate. All run into that channel, and neither of them coxild 
carry on the war by themselves. It took both their positions 
to create parties, and both their acts to bring on a conflict, and 
bring the people under military power. Both these principles 
are the same, claiming a right in the hands of the Legislatures 
of the several States to emancipate. 

The Lincoln party claim, and act upon, the right to eman. 
cipate the slave property in their own States, while the 
Davis party declares, that it cannot be denied but that a 
State has a right to emancipate, and that there shall be no 
intervention on the part of Congress ; and that the State 
has the right to take life, liberty and property from the peo- 
ple, and they have no course but to obey. They have 
adopted all the provisions that I have shown, to secure the 
power. So, it will be seen, that those two political bodies 
contend for the very same principles ; for, if the Legislature 
of a State have power, by legislation, to take away one part 
of the people's property, they would have the power to take 
all. So, the only difference between the two is, that Lin- 
coln's Abolition party have taken away the African prop^ 
erty from the Northern States, while the Davis party declare 
that it shall not be denied that they had the right to eman- 
cipate and take evei'y thing from the people. Now, what 
are they fighting for? It cannot be because they differ in 
opinion as to the right to emancipate, for the Davis party 
goes farther in support of Abolitionism than I have ever 
heard from the Lincoln party. Both these politicians pro- 
fessed that their object was to preserve the Union, when 
every principle they have adopted would utterly destroy it. 
I have said a great deal about the principles adopted by our 
Southern politicians. I have pointed out their errors with- 
out reserve. If their errors originated in the head, and not 
in any bad intentions from the heart, I am sure they will not 



145 

blame me, but will be glad tli9,t their errors have been cor- 
rected, so that much harm may be prevented hereafter. 

I will now endeavour to show that the Abolition party, 
both before and after the election of Lincoln, had violated 
every obligation of the Constitution, both to the ISTorth and 
South, and cannot be considered members of the Union. 

And, in the first place, it will be recollected that I have 
fully established, by the provisions of the Constitution, that 
no State has power, by acts of Legislatures, or acts of ma- 
jorities, to take even the value of a pin from the people. 
Now, what has this Abolition party done at the ISTorth? 
They have assumed the power, and emancipated from the 
people of the Northern States their African property, when 
the Constitution provides that the citizens of each State 
were to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects, 
and that security was to be preserved inviolable ; and all 
members of the Union were bound to protect each other, on 
any account whatever. But we were not bound to protect 
any but the members of the Union. In place of protecting 
the citizen in his just rights, according to the law of both 
God and man, they assumed a false power, not granted by 
the Constitution, which they had sworn to support and de- 
fend. It provides that no State shall have power to pass an 
ex post facto law, nor law imparing the obligation of con- 
tracts. It also provides that no law or regulation shall be 
made by any State to discharge a servant, or person bound 
to service, due to a citizen of another State; but, if a ser- 
vant, or person bound to service, in one State shall escape, 
and flee to another State, they shall be bound to deliver such 
servant, or person bound to service, to the proper owner. 

The Constitution also provides that the citizens of each 
State shall have free ingress and egress, to and from, 
any otlier State, and be entitled to all the privileges and 
immunities of the citizens in the several States, su,bject to 
the same restrictions and taxation in the same State, pro- 
vided those restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent 
10 



146 

the removal of property from one State to any other State, 
the citizen being an inhabitant thereof, 

Now, the State Rights Abolition Legislature, under Lin- 
coln's administration, have passed laws to prevent both their 
own citizens and those of any other State from enjoying the 
rights secured to them. For the Constitution of the United 
States provides that no imposition duties or restrictions shall 
be laid by any State upon the property of the United States 
or either of them. Now, all these obligations entered into, 
and rights secured by the Constitution to the citizens, both 
North and South, have been denied by the Abolition 
State Rights legislative power. And, under this same power, 
our Southern State Rights Calhoun party are trying to force 
us ; so you see they are acting upon the same principles, and 
both aiming at the same object, to wit: to establish emper- 
ors over the people, and, by that means, place them in such 
a condition that they can rob them to any extent they may 
think proper, and fix on themselves any salary they pleased, 
and live in princely royalty and grandeur, all at the expense 
of the poor laboring citizens. But let us see how much 
further these good State Rights Abolitionists have violated 
the provisions of the Constitution, and show that those two 
political bodies have both adopted the same plan to bring 
the people into conflict, so as to get them under their mili- 
tary power, and, by that means, take away their liberties. 
They pretend that their whole object is to take the African 
property from their owners and set them free, and, by that 
means, blind the people and hide the true object from their 
view. But let the people of the North look into this mat- 
ter and see that the same rights which they take from the 
North they take also from the South, for whatever right a 
citizen of the North has, the citizen of the South has the 
same. For the Constitution of the United States provides 
that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 
privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several 
States, so that whatever right a citizen has in any State, 



147 

every citizen througliout tlie United States has the same 
right. If it were otherwise, it could not be a Union, for the 
word union means one, not tioo ; it means one, united, con- 
solidated and cemented ; so no right can be taken from the 
Soutli, which sliould not be taken from the North. For, 
under the Constitution, there are no parties. Every citizen 
has the same right, and is entitled to the same protection, 
by the supreme law of the land, which law is embodied 
in the Constitution of the United States. 

Now, this is the Union which I am in favor of restoring 
to the people in its original purity, and no other. But you 
will say, this is not the kind of a Union that Lincoln and 
Davis are trying to establish. Both their objects is to de- 
stroy it, as I have clearly shown, and bring the people un- 
der the grandest despotism that existed on earth, and they 
have already nearly accomplished their object. It will be> 
seen that the object of the Lincoln Abolition party is to 
create parties, and pretend that they are acting for the rights 
of the North, while every act they do is taking away the- 
rights of the people of the North. If they and the Davis^ 
party can succeed in establishing the power in the State 
Right Legislatures of each State, as they are trying to do, 
the people would not have even the shadow of a right. 
And, while the people of the North would be assisting them 
in taking the negro from his master, in place of making the 
negro free, he would bring the negro and himself both under 
the most tyrannical despotism that exists on earth. 

Now, I am no more a fiiend to a citizen of the South 
than a citizen of the North. I am a friend of the wliole 
' human family, from one end of the globe to the other. We 
are all a part of God's creation, and He has commanded us 
to love one another, and I am certain that God has put it 
into my heart to write these things for your warning ; and, 
if God will be so gracious as to cause the people to read and 
understand what 1 have written, and redeem themselves 
from this cruel despotism that is about to bring them into 



148 

everlasting ruin and destruction, give the glory to God and 
not to man. I fear we have sinned in that respect, and God 
is now about to convince us of our mistake. 

We have been applauding the very men that have brought 
all tliis evil on the land, by acclamations and praise. "We 
have, also, made images, and set them up in our houses, 
when the God, who gave us this happy government I have 
endeavored to describe, has commanded " Thou shalt not 
make unto thyself any graven image, or any likeness of 
anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath — • 
thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them." 

Kow, many have brought the images and likenesses of 
these into their houses, in honoring and aggrandising them, 
and to show their respect, whicli is a kind of worship, in my 
opinion. It is certainly sinning against the commands of 
God. They are also building monuments in honor and 
praise of man, when God is the only giver of every good 
and perfect gift. So that, if we have a good man, God is 
the giver ; and if he renders good and kind services, it is 
God that gives him wisdom, and a willing mind to perform 
his duty , so that tlie whole gift is of God. 

I fnlly believe that God, by his holy spirit, showed me all 
those things, which I have attempted to communicate to our 
unfortunate people, and that He has given me a willing 
mind to do so. I hope those principles that I have set forth 
as a standard of government, may be once more adopted 
over this once happy, but now the worst destroyed and most 
unhappy people on earth. Therefore, if God should be so 
kind as to re-instate yoii, in the happy condition that you 
once were, be sure to give Him the honor and glory, and 
not man. And try not to fix the honor too much on your- 
selves, for God will reward you according to your deserts. 
For God has shown me a plan by which, I think, the mili- 
tary power can be taken from these two military chieftains, 
and a way by which harmony, love, unity and friendship 
may be restored among all tlie people of America, and with- 



149 

out sacrificing any of the lives, liberties or property of tlie 
people. The plan is, for the Legislatures of each State, 
South and North, to call for an armistice for ninety days, 
and, if we succeed, both North and South must agree to it 
at the same time. It would not do so well for only one 
party to act by themselves; for this would be acting upon 
the same foundation. They have destroyed our rights by 
creating parties ; but, under the Constitution, there were no 
parties. All have the same right, from one part of the 
Union to the other, to buy what he pleases, go into any 
State or territory he pleases, and be protected in it — not 
only in every State or territory, but as far as the flag of the 
United States waves, on any account whatever. Let 
the original Constitution, in its purity, be established, with 
tliose explanations added, for the purpose of guiding and di- 
recting the people and officers, in the true meaning of the 
provisions of the government created by the people, and es- 
tablished by the people, instead of acts of legislation and 
acts of majorities. 

If we succeed in restoring back to the people this true 
standard of government principles, which, I hope, by the 
help of God we will, our government will last forever, for 
it is the government promised under the day of the Millen- 
nium. Now, let all the members of the Legislatures do 
their part in calling a Peace Convention, and every one that 
refuses to adopt those principles as a standard of govern- 
ment, you may be assured they are one of the party who 
are in colleague with those who are aiming to destroy the 
government of the people, and bring them under an emper- 
or. And, as the whole work of destruction has been 
brought about by lawyers, they are the ones who would be 
benefitted by this government of tyranny and oppression ; 
for, if they get a king in every State, it will require a great 
many officers to carry out all their royal authorities. And 
who would get these offices hnttlielawi/ers ? and they would 
have to fix a high salary on them to preserve their loyalty. 



150 

Now, it has been the laicyers North and South that have 
brought all this evil on the land. They are the people who 
ought to have told the people how to be protected in their 
rights, and ought to have told them what their rights were. 
But in place of telling them what rights were secured to them 
by the government, they told the people that they had no rights 
at all, that the Legislatures of the States had the absolute con- 
trol over their lives and liberties, and had a right to take every- 
thing from the peoj^le. a right to declare the extent of their 
obligation, and when once declared, they had no course but to 
obey. Now, this is the counsel we, the people, got from the 
lawyers of South Carolina, after their Convention in 1832. So 
I advise the members of the legislatures to watch the lawyers. 
I will admit that there are many honest lawyers, and as good 
men among them as the world can produce, and there are honest 
men, both lawyers and citizens, who have taken an active part 
with those two political parties, as the world can produce. I 
do not point out any one in particular as a traitor, with all the 
bad designs and intentions, that must have existed with the 
originators of those principles, adopted by those destroyers of 
the Constitution. 

As we do not know at this time, and as all the originators 
that we have any clue at are dead, and as we are well assured 
in our minds that the largest bulk of mankind have been 
actuated in all they have done, from the best designs and inten- 
tions, I would say to the Legislatures, let them all agree that 
all who come in willingly under the original Constitution in its 
purity, that no disgrace nor charge shall be brought against 
them, but that all shall come in free, and that so far as faults are 
concerned or have been committed, no pains nor penalties shall 
be inflicted of any kind, small or great. The principles written 
out, and the explanations are so reasonable and just that any 
one who does still resist and attempt to carry out those unjust 
principles, giving power to the Legislatures to rob and take 
everything from the people, after they have seen those explana- 
tions and still attempt to go on and establish that despotism 
over the peoj^le, should never be allowed to become a member 
of this Union. As I have before shown, the Lincoln Abolition 



151 

party hare forfeited every obligation under the Constitution, 
have made parties to deceive the people of the North, and pre- 
tended they were not doing them any harm, when they were 
depriving them of every right secured. For by their acts they 
are trying to bring the people under their legislative power, 
just as the secessionists are trying to bring the people under. 
They have passed laws to take your property from you without 
any compensation, they are now giving Davis an excuse to 
resist them, and are giving him a chance to bring two parties into 
conflict, and by that means they have an excuse to bring the 
people under military power, and by that means they are 
destroying the government, and taking away all the security 
for either life, liberty or property, as it is this day, and this 
power they assume through acts of legislation and acts of 
majorities in the Legislatures of each State. 

Now, you see, as I have shown, that those two parties act on 
the same principles. The North say they have the right to 
emancipate — the South says "it shall not be denied that a State 
has the right to emancipate and take everything from the 
people." Now, on what grounds do those two great political 
parties differ. I do assure the people of the North that if they 
favor Lincoln's administration they will be brought under the 
same despotism that Davis' administration is attempting to 
bring upon the people of the South, as I have shown, and bring 
all under emperors. 

Now, the Constitution of the United States provides that no 
law nor regulation shall be made by any State to discharge a 
servant or person bound to service due to a citizen of another 
State ; but if a servant or person bound to service shall escape 
to another State, they shall be bound to deliver up such servant 
or person bound to service. Now, by that same State Right 
doctrine, claimed by the secessionists, the Lincoln party have 
passed acts in ten States, that if a servant or person bound to 
service shall escape to their State he shall be free, and by way 
of deciding for themselves and choosing their own mode and 
measure of redress, the Abolitionists have passed acts that if 
any one attempted to recover a servant or person bound to 
service, or aided and assisted in recovering such servant, the 



152 

person so attempting to recover such servant should be fined to 
a Reavy extent, and imprisoned for a long time. 

Now, these acts were a direct violation of the Constitution; 
and if adopted, as the standard of government, would destroy 
the whole object of the framers of the Constitution, to wit: the 
protection of each member of the Union in all his just rights- 
So if these acts were suffered to exist, there would be no 
Union. Now, this looks very much like those two parties 
were acting in concert. Both and all their acts are unconstitu" 
tional. Each party are trying to establish all power in the 
hands of the Legislature. In this part they both agree, while 
the very object of the framers of the Constitution was to 
restrict all acts of legislation and acts of majorities from having 
any i:)ower to take even the value of a pin from the jDeople. 
The next thing that the Lincoln Abolitionists and the Davis 
secessionists did was to pass a law in Congress that every 
State should have the right to come into the Union, with or 
without slaves ; this was also unconstitutional, and oaly calcu- 
lated to create parties — this the secessionists also agreed to. 

Now, the Constitution of the United States provides that 
every officer throughout the United States shall be bound by 
oath or affirmation that they will support and defend the Con- 
stitution of the United States, notwithstanding any constitution 
or law in any State to the contrary. Now, this shows clearly 
that every State has to come into the Union on the same terms 
as the first did. There is but one way to come in. If they 
were to come in under different rights and privileges, it would 
lay down a plan to create parties, and by that means lay the 
foundation for the destruction of the Union. As both parties 
agreed to it, it shows that they are acting in concert. Now, 
the two parties have created a sufficient number of parties to 
overthrow the Constitution. 

Mr. Calhoun had found out a plan to fill a whole book full of 
parties, which he said were constitutional, while, I think I have 
shown, they are every one false constructions, and that not one 
of his or Lincoln's were constitutional, but directly opposed to 
it, and could answer no other purpose than to place the people 
in a situation that they could establish over them an emperor. 



153 

Now, after these two parties have bo well agreed in forming 
their party principles, let us see what plan they will adopt to 
get the people into a conflict, so that they may be enabled to 
get them under military power, and force them under any kind 
of government they please, and place them in a situation that 
they will have no course but to obey. The Lincoln Abolition 
pajfty declares that the owners of slave property shall not carry 
their property into any other State or territory, although they 
fought for it and gave their full share of money to pay for it. 
This was fully sufficient to cause the slave States to resist. The 
secessionists told the people that there was no better way to 
resist than to go out of the Union, and reasoned with the people 
in this way — if three persons entered into a copartnership, and 
two of them tried to swindle and cheat the third one out of his 
rights, had he not a right to withdraw from the copartnership ? 
The answer was at once yes. 

But let us see whether this figure would suit the case or not. 
In the first place those three individuals must be out of a 
government or in one. If out of a government, he had the 
right to withdraw, for he had no help against the two, but at 
the same time he would have to leave his property in their 
hands and lose it. But suj^pose they were living in a govern- 
ment and the two tried to swindle the one, he had a right to 
withdraw and call on the government to protect' him in his 
rights. And when the law protected him in his rights, it made 
him stronger than the 'two, while out of the government they 
were stronger than he. 

Now let us see how the case will apply to the secession of 
South Carolina. The acts and declarations of the Lincoln Abo- 
litionists were that they would deprive the members of one 
portion of the Union of their just rights, secured to them under 
the Constitution, Avhich provides that no State should have 
power to impair the obligation of contracts. But the Aboli- 
tionists, in face of these laws, passed acts to rob many of their 
own people of their rights, and the Southern people of all their 
rights. 

Now let us see how our South Carolina friends acted under 
these circumstances. They run out of the Union and left all 
the shipping, arms, ammunition and territories in the undis- 



154 

puted possession of the Abolitionists, and by their act relin- 
quished all right and title to all those, according to the law of 
nations. For, as they quit the government, they relinquished 
all public property belonging to the government. They never 
once claimed their right to it, but told them if they would let 
them alone they might have it all. Now, this act of secession 
left the people without shipping, navy, arms, ammunition and 
territory. They told the people they must fight for their rights, 
when they had given to the Abolitionists everything, and left 
them nothing to fight with and nothing to fight /or but to estab- 
lish the power in those legislative State Right bodies. So in 
place of applying to the law to protect us in our rights, we left 
everything in the hands of the Abolitionists. They gave up 
everything, not even telling us what rights we had, but gave to 
the Abolitionists everything they claimed, and in their conven- 
tions created laws for the Abolitionists to act uj^on, as I have 
already shown. 

Now, under those circumstances, how can those two parties 
make any showing to acquit themselves of the charge of acting 
in concert, for the very purpose I have indicated, viz : to make two 
emperors. For Davis' party urge the people never to go back 
into the Union, and" Lincoln's party have never made any propo- 
sition to the Southern States that they could accept. So that 
it is evident that the Lincoln Abolition party do not want them 
to return to the Union in its original purity, for if they did they 
would return to it themselves, for they are as much out of the 
Union as Davis and his party are. The union he proposes to 
the South is that if the South shall suffer him and his Abolition 
party to rob and take whatever property they please from the 
South, and let them dictate to them what kind of property they 
may own or not own, they might live with them in their rob- 
bing government, not under the original Union in its purity, 
but under such a union as they may see fit to establish. And I 
wish the people of the North to examine into this matter and 
see if they are not assisting the Abolition party, not only in 
robbing us but also robbing themselves of every right secured 
to them under the Constitution, and bringing them under the 
greatest despotism on earth. Now, they are legally and 



155 

honorably bound to protect and defend us and themselves in 
every right secured to us and them under the Constitution of 
the United States in the Union. For while you are aiding and 
assisting them by their acts of legislation and acts of majorities 
to take away our rights, you are aiding and assisthig Davis and 
Lincoln in establishing the grandest military despotism over 
yourselves and children that exists on the globe, under the pre- 
tence that they are fighting for the liberty of the negro. 

If they establish the right and the power in the Legisla- 
ture to take from the people any one part of tlieir property 
of course it would establish in them the right to take all. 
The State Rights party have defined their power that is to 
be placed in the Legisla,tiire, and acts of majorities, that they 
are to be under no obligation but their own will, more than 
any prince or potentate, neither should they suffer them- 
selves, under any other restraint ; and that tliey had the ab- 
solute control over the life, liberty and property of the peo- 
ple — the clear right to declare their obligation, and, when 
once declared, the people had no course but to obey. And 
if they refuse to obey, so as to bring themselves under the 
displeasure of their only and lawful sovereign, and the se- 
vere pains and penalties affixed by her high and sovereign 
power, the Leo-islature will not fail to provide for her self- 
defence, the fault and folly will be their ow^n. This language 
leaves no doubt where the sovereign power wdll be fixed. . 
Kow, this is the power that the Davis party and the Lin- 
coln party are trying to establish over both Korth and 
South. Now, if those principles were established as the 
standard of government, in place of the Constitution of the 
United States, the Legislatures of each State being under 
no obligation but their own will, and having no checks 
against any act they thought proper to pass, the people 
would have to submit to it. And those Legislatures having 
to be elected by majorities, any fanatical body which could 
gain the ascendency, could elect their party, and under that 
form of government, take everything from the people. 

One party might gain the ascendency to-day, and put the 



156 

people in the possession of their rights, and to-morrow the 
other party might gain the ascendency, and take away every- 
thing from the people. It would be like throwing a cork on 
the sea — it would be there to-day, but there would be no tell- 
ing where it would be to-morrow. Life, liberty, property and 
everything would hang on uncertainties. Now, this is the 
kind of government that Davis and his party, and Lincoln 
and his party are trying to establish over the North and 
South. Tlie North has already experienced some of the ef- 
fects of this government, for, by the acts of State Rights 
sovereignty, and acts of majorities, they say what kind of 
property you shall own, and what kind you shall not. Now, 
if they ]iave the right to deny you, the right to own one 
kind of property, they have the right to pass acts, denying 
you the right to own any kind of property, and also to pass 
acts that you should be their servants, and that you should 
transfer the proceeds of your labor to them ; and, according 
to the declarations made in their conventions, they had the 
riglit to take everything from the people, and that they had 
no course but to obey. And if the people refused obedience, 
so as to bring themselves under the displeasure of their only 
and lawful sovereign, and within the severe pains and pen- 
alties which, in her high and sovereign power, the Legisla- 
ture would not fail to provide for herself, the fault and folly 
would be their own. Now, acting under this form of gov- 
ernment, the Abolition party have first robbed the people of 
their African property, wliich, as I have shown, the Consti- 
tution of tlie United States had secured to every member of 
this Union, one and the same right. 

The right of owning the heathen is a right given by God 
to Moses, by express command, "command the children of 
Israel to take unto themselves servants of the heathen that 
are round about them, and that they should be their ser- 
vants, they and their children for ever." And the whole 
Scriptures abound with proof as to the right of owning the 
heathen as servants, and reason itself would justify it. For 



157 

instance : look at the African in his own conntiy, and many 
other heathens, and see what is their situation in their own 
country, in regard to the salvation of their souls. The Scrip- 
tures say, " there is no other name given under heaven, or 
among men, whereby we must be saved, but the name of 
the Lord Jesus Christ." It says, also, " he that believeth 
on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved, but he that believ- 
eth not shall be condemned." It says, also, that faith cometh 
by hearing and hearing by the preaching of the word, and 
how can they hear without a preacher ? and how can they 
preach unless they are sent? ISTow, in that respect, there 
have been no preachers sent, and if they were sent, what 
would be their condition ? They could not understand their 
language, and if they took it in their heads, they might kill 
and eat them. But let us put the missionary plan of civilizing 
and christianizing the heathen on the best footing we can, 
and see what their prospect would be. Let us send mis- 
sionaries to Africa to civilize and christianize the Africans, 
and they do not kill and eat them, it will take a long time 
to learn their language, they might take sick and die — (it is 
said to be a very sickly country) — but suppose they escape 
being killed and eaten, and do not die with sickness, and 
that they succeed in learning their language, and that they 
succeed in getting the good will of the chieftain, and that 
they could teach him and all his subjects who the true and 
living God is, and our lost favor with God ; and the way 
God is willing to be reconciled to us by faith in Christ, as 
undertaking to fulfill the law, and suffer the penalties of the 
law for us, and in our stead ; and that every one under that 
chieftain were to become Christians, and that they would 
begin to cultivate the soil and live in a civilized and Chris- 
tian manner — have hogs,*horses, cattle and everything plen- 
tiful about them — what would be their fate ? Their having 
property about them, and plenty on which to live, would 
only be a temptation to the neighboring savage chieftains 
to fall upon, rob, murder and destroy them and all they pos- 



158 

sessed. For all heathen nations are governed by nothing 
bnt self-gratification. So they are gratified, they care not 
how much others suffer. So, by this, you will see what 
great blessings God has bestowed on the people of America 
by the preachers of the Gospel, who preach the true word 
of God — not the words of abolition and robbery, but the 
protection of every member of the Union — not to rob the 
master of his servant. 

Now we see the awful condition the heathens are in, from 
what I have shown. Missionaries cannot relieve the hea- 
thens from the deplorable condition in which they are placed, 
for in every heathen land the people are controlled by mili- 
tary chieftains, and divided into little squads or parties, and 
none of them lie down at night with any assurance that they 
will be alive in the morning. ISTow, it seems to me, that the 
true condition of the heathen is such that the missionaries 
cannot reach their case. For this plan has been adopted by 
man for near two thousand years, and where has one nation 
been civilized or christianized by that plan ? Look at the 
many Indian tribes that live among us, how many of them 
have been christianized and civilized by missionaries? But 
let us turn our attention to the African race, as I have shown 
their true condition in their own country, that they have no 
security for their own soul, life, liberty or property. Nor is 
it possible that they could have it otherwise, in the condition 
under which they are placed, in all lieathen nations. Let us 
turn our attention to them under the protection of their 
Christian masters. 

They are brought to the land of light and knowledge, 
where the true and living God is preached to all, from the 
least to the greatest, and the plan of salvation is proclaimed 
by the preachers of tlie Gospel, it is by and through the 
authority of God made known, that salvation is offered to 
all the human family, through our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, by and tlirough faith in liis satisfaction, all may be 
saved. The African receives tliis offer, and has the cliance 



169 

of hearing the Gospel preached, which he could not have 
heard in his own country. There he could never have had 
a chance to embrace the offers of salvation. 

ISTow, under these circumstances, what can the Abolition- 
ists think of themselves, who preach that they ought to be 
left in their own country, and conceal all this light and 
knowledge from them, which would prevent the Devil from 
having full control over both soul and body. What credit 
do they think they will get from God, when they go before 
His judgment seat? God commanded the children ot Israel 
to take unto themselves servants of the heathen round about, 
and they should be their servants, they and their children, 
forever. He also promised his people that He would give 
to them the heathen for plowmen and vinedressers. 

Now, the Abohtionists oppose everything that God has com- 
manded and promised ; but, from what I have shown, the gi-eat 
wisdom and goodness of God, has been made manifest towards 
those Africans, whose good fortune it has been to be brought 
here into this land of hght and knowledge, where the true and 
living God is so fully known, that it cannot be hid, neither can 
the plan of salvation be hid from any one who will dilligently 
seek after it. Now, if the African had been left in his own 
country, he and his posterity would have been deprived of this 
great blessing. And what does the Scripture say on that 
subject — "what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world 
and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange 
for his soul." Man had nothing he could give, but Christ came 
and kept the law in our stead, and paid the penalty of the law 
for us, and promised salvation to all who would beheve in and 
receive the salvation freely offered, by faith, without money and 
without price. 

Now, the Abolitionists recommend us to let the Africans 
remain in their own country, and let the Devil have full control 
over both their soul and body. And why ? It cannot be 
because they are free, for their life, liberty and property are in 
the hands of their military chieftain, he can kill whom he 
pleases, eat whom he pleases, and deprive them of every right 
the human family should enjoy, just as the Lincoln party and 



160 

the Davis party are trying to do with the people both North 
and South. 

But let us further examine the condition of the African 
servant in our Christian land, and see if there is any truth in 
what the Abolitionists represent. "We see what unspeakable 
blessings are bestowed on them, as it regards the salvation of 
their souls. But the Abolitionists say we make them work for 
us, and give them nothing for their work. Let us see if that is 
true. In the first place they are bought by then- master, or 
become his by inheritance, the master controls their savage and 
heathen principles, and brings them under the rules of civiliza- 
tion, and teaches them who the true God is, and the plan of 
salvation. He furnishes them a home to live in, food and 
clothing; land to work, horses, wagons, and tools of every kind 
necessary to work with, instructs them and directs their labor 
to advantage by himself or his agent. He protects them from 
imposition from any source whatever, his interest binds him to 
do this if there was no humanity in the case. But as the 
servant is his money, the master has a double interest in him. 
The servant has his master's interest and humanity, both, to 
secure his protection. It could not benefit the owner to oppress 
him, nor yet to hurt him, unless he committed crimes which 
would require punishment to prevent his committing them 
again. So that a servant who is bought with money, and works 
for his master, has a greater security against injustice and 
oppression than the servant who works for money or wages. 
If the servant's master owns his wife and children also, he feeds 
and clothes them, if they belong to another master, he feeds, 
clothes and takes care of them. If they get sick, he calls in 
the best physician, and nurses them attentively until they either 
die or recover. The interest that the master has in him as his 
money, as well as the interest of humanity, makes him willing 
to do all he can for him. 

But how is it with the hired servant at the North, or in any 
other part of the country. Those who hire them care nothing 
for them, more than to get as much work out of them for as 
little money as they possibly can, and a great many cheat them 
out of nearly all of their hard earned and scanty wages. If 



161 

their family is sick, their distress is not cared for, and perhaps 
the husband has not means to employ a physician, and cannot 
spare time to give the attention needed to his family. If their 
true condition was faithfully pictured out, it would be found 
to be deplorable, and much worse than the condition of the 
Africans, which the Abolitionists pity so much. 

The Abolitionists at the North prefer to make servants of 
white men, while the people of the South prefer to have 
servants of the heathen, as God has commanded. Here, 
they have a chance to receive all the blessings of life and 
security, and all the blessings of that free salvation assured 
by Jesus Christ, which the Abolitionists are trying to de- 
prive them of. But this is the only plea that Lincoln and 
his Abolition party have to make war on the people of the 
South. And why ? Because the people of the South are 
not willing to let these Abolitionists rob them of their Afri- 
can property, and become united with their robbing party, 
who have first robbed every member of the Union in their 
own States by acts of majorities and acts of legislation, of 
all the rights secured to them by the Constitution. Because 
if they establish the right in the acts of legislation and the 
acts of majorities, to take from the people one part of their 
property, it would establish the right to take your 
life/liberty and all your property, which power is really 
claimed by the conventions of disunionists, both N^orth and 
South, calling themselves Democrats, when there is not one 
particle of democracy in one principle they have adopted, 
as a standard of government. For that which constitutes 
pure democracy, is where the people all govern, and that 
can only be done by having a written agreement on the 
principles by which they all agree to be governed, and gov- 
ern all others, and protect and defend each right, liberty, 
person and property of each individual contained in that 
writing ; that would be true democracy. 

Now, do the principles adopted either by Davis or 

Lincoln do that ? Are not both their acts and their declara- 
11 



162 

tions the very reverse, as I have already shown ? Now, 
could it be possible, that Lincoln and his Abolition party 
could have such great love for the negro that they would 
give away the life of two Northern citizens, just for the sake 
of getting one negro away from his master ? I am certain 
that they will have to give the life of two ISTorthern citizens 
for every negro they take from his master, besides the vast 
amount of debt and distress they will bring upon the peo- 
ple. .. But they pretend they are trying to bring the South- 
ern States back into the Union of the Constitution of the 
United States. For it provides that every citizen be secure 
in their persons, papers, houses and effects, and that security 
shall be preserved inviolably. But is this what Lincoln and 
his party are doing ? 'No. He raised an army and came 
upon the South, killing, and robbing and threatening to take 
away the entire African property of the Southern people, 
while this property is more strongly secured and protected, 
under the Constitution, than any other property in the 
United States. 

Now, when Lincoln and his party are robbing, killing 
and destroying citizens, whom they are bound by oath to 
defend and support, can he or his party be members of the 
Union? Does not the Constitution provide that the citizens 
of each State shall have free ingress and egress, to and from 
any other State, and take his property with him ; and that 
no imposition duties or restrictions shall be laid by any State 
upon the property of the United States, or any of them ? 
Have not the Abolition party violated all these agreements ? 
Docs not the Constitution provide that no law or regulation 
shall be made by any State to discharge a servant, or person 
bound to service, due to a citizen of another State ? But if 
a servant, or person bound to service, should escape to an- 
other State, they shall be bound to give up such servant, or 
person bound to service. 

Now, has not Lincoln and his party violated every obli- 
gation of the Union in that respect ? He admits that those 



163 

who own servants are members of the Union, and violates 
the Union to tliem, and if thej will not remain in his rob- 
bing Union, he will bring his robbing army upon the people 
of the South and take away everything from them, if they 
do not snbmit to his robbery. They also denied the citizens 
of the South a right to settle with their property in the ter- 
ritories, which belonged as much to the South as to them, 
or more, for their own acts put them out of the Union, and, 
legally, they had no riglit in the Union. 

Now, this will show to the people of the North that Lincoln 
and his Abolition party are not fighting to ^jreserve the Union, 
but to destroy it. And I have no doubt, in my mind, that Da- 
vis and Lincoln are acting together for the same purpose — that 
is, to make a King in each State, and themselves Emperors. 
For the whole of those plans and principles have been adopted 
by lawyers , and if they succeed in establishing a king in every 
State, it will require a great many officers to carry out the gov- 
ernment of these royalties ; and, of course, those offices wUl be 
filled with lawyers. 

Now, take this vics^ of their principles adopted, and you can 
see some sense in their proceedings ; but, view it in any other 
light, and it will seem utter folly and ignorance. Now, froift 
what I have shown, it is impossible that either of those two 
parties are trying to protect the people in their constitutional 
rights, while both parties adopted the same principles to de- 
stroy them. It cannot be denied but that the Abolition party 
did rob the people of the North of their African property by 
acts of legislation and acts of majorities of separate States. 
This is the very same principle that the Davis State Rights 
party are contending for. Now, you wUi see from what I have 
shown, that the object of these two military chieftains is not to 
fix principles to protect the people in their rights, but to place 
them in a situation that they can rob and take everything from 
them. They knew that they had to destroy the Constitution 
before they could do that. So take that view, and you see 
sense in the Davis party for quitting the Union, and giving Lin- 
coln and his party all the shipping, navy, arms, ammunition 
territories and everything, to get out of the Union, under the 



164 

pretence of protecting the people against Lincoln and his Abo- 
lition party, when they were, at the same time, adopting prin- 
ciples as strong as words or language could express, to sustain 
the Abolitionists, as I have already shown. 

Now, I wish the people of the North to fully understand that 
the object of the Lincoln party is not to give the negro liberty, 
but to bring the negro under the grandest tyranny upon earth, 
and the whites along with them. I consider the people of the 
South and North innocent of all, except suffering themselves to 
be fanaUcised and deluded by the influence of these lawyers- 
But I know they are a slick-tongued kind of people. I wish to 
inform the North that if they persist in aiding Lincoln and his 
Abolition party in robbing the people of the South of their Af- 
rican property, they may expect to give the lives of two sons, 
or the women two husbands for every negro, small or great, 
they take from their owners. The people of the South are all 
united on that jDoint. 

What right has Lincoln and his party to come to our homes 
and firesides to rob and plunder us ? The South has the just 
right, by the law of God and man, to kill every one that comes 
on that errand, and will do it as long as there is a man to fight ; 
we will be right, and you will be wrong. It is clear that Lin- 
coln's object is not to preserve the Union, for, if it was, he 
would go back to the Union. And then he might, with some 
propriety, say to the South, I have erred myself, and failed to 
comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Let us both 
return to it. I will, for the future, comply with all the terms 
of the Union. Let us be friends and helpmates to each other, 
against all attacks made against us, on any account whatever. 
Then he would look more like he wished to preserve the Union. 

But, in place of his doing that, he raises a great army, after 
doing the South so much injury and injustice under his Abolition 
principles, and begins to rob, kill and take everything from the 
people ; but proposes to make peace if the South will suffer him 
to rob them as much as he pleases. This is the kind of gov- 
ernment Lincoln offers to the South, and Davis' party offer the 
people of the South the same kind of government. 

Now, the people need never expect peace from the Lincoln 



165 

party nor from the Davis party, until they get the people all 
under military power, and then they will make peace with each 
other, and agree that each one shall be emperor, and assist each 
other to sustain the power over the people, as I have already 
described. 

Now, I have endeavored to show how these two political 
chieftains deceived and got the people under their power. In 
the first place, the disunion party, a small party of their deluded 
followers, under the appearance of calling a Convention, pro- 
nounced the people of South Carolina out of the Union, (with- 
out asking the people's consent either,) and called on the people 
to form themselves under a military organization, to protect 
their homes, their firesides and their families, and pretended to 
form a constitution after the form of the original, but never 
consulted the people. All this was said to be done on account 
of the Abolition raiders. They declared South Carolina to be 
separate and sovereign. The Union claimed the port of Charles- 
ton, and collected the revenue of all the impost duties. Lin- 
coln sent his vessel, they fired on it, took possession of all the 
public property they could lay their hands on. This gave Lin- 
coln an excuse to come with an army, which he did, without 
any authority but his own. That gave Davis' party an excuse 
to call for volunteers to protect their rights against the Aboli- 
tionists, and, in this way, they managed to get up military 
power. 

Now, Lincoln pretended that he was protecting the Union, 
while every act he did Avas violating it. But Davis' party hav- 
ing withdrawn from the Union, j)laced those that v.'ere friends 
of the Union of other States so that they could not help the 
South, and the friends of the Union at the South could not as- 
sist Lincoln's Abolition principles, and could not join the North. 

Now, this is the way the friends of the Union, in its purity, 
have been swindled out of their government. So you see those 
two political chieftains are not fools, but through their intrigues 
and ingenuity have, so far, accomplished everything they have 
attempted. I have now endeavored to show the people of the 
South and North, the deplorable condition they have been 
brought into, under the direction of these two military chief- 



166 

tains. And now I wish to point out a plan to get out of this 
military power, and get the people all out of the war to their 
homes and deserted families — children to their parents — hus- 
bands to their wives and children. There is but one way that 
I know of, in which it can be done. Let the legislatures of 
every State, North and South, call for an armistice for ninety 
days, and, at the same time, call for a peace convention of every 
State, North and South. I have written out a platform for all 
to examine, which, I think, no man can object to who has any 
desire to do right, with many explanations to guide the mind 
and assist the judgment of every member of the legislatures 
of the United States, North and South. And to show that the 
course I point out is legal and constitutional, I will call your at- 
tention to the Constitution, which you all have been sworn to 
support and defend. 

There are two ways for calling a convention provided, one is 
by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress ; the other by two- 
thirds of the Legislatures of the several States. The States of 
the South, still living under the constitutional government, are, 
or ought to be, in accordance with the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States, and have never been admitted to be out of the Union 
of the other States, And, in accordance with the powers 
claimed for each State, by the Lincoln and Secession parties, 
that every State had the right to decide for herself, and choose 
her own mode and measure of redress, the remedy I propose 
will not be in violation of the rights claimed by the secession- 
ists, and it will be in accordance with the Constitution of the 
United States. Under these circumstances, let the legislatures 
of the several States call for an armistice for ninety days under 
the original Union, in its purity. You need not suppose that 
Lincoln's party, or Davis' party either, will assist you in the 
work of reconstruction of the Union ; for, from all appear- 
ances, both their intentions, from the beginning, were to 
destroy the Union, and place the people under the greatest 
tyranny and oppression in the world. 

Now, if you can succeed in redeeming the people out of their 
deplorable condition, your names will be handed down to pos- 
terity as the redeemers of your country from the greatest tyranny 



167 

on earth, and the restorers of the tree of liberty from the hands 
of tyranny, which may, in time, spread its shadow over the 
whole earth; and all men will call you blessed to the end of 
time. 

Now, I wish to apprise you of a danger that will follow, if 
you members do not act on this plan immediately. If you ne- 
glect to attend to calling for an armistice, and for a peace con- 
vention, through the members of the legislatures of each State, 
until Lincoln can get the people of all the Northern States un- 
der his military power, he and the Davis party will be fixed, so 
that they can pass laws that if any one should speak against, or r e- 
sist in any manner, any act they may pass, the penalty will be 
death. And having their military court arranged according to 
the plan of the South Carolina Ordinance, and jjlacing the 
citizen in a situation in which he could n ot traverse his case, 
they could try him without his case being plead. Now, you 
see, under this military court, they having the law and the sword 
in their own hands, they could commence making kings in every 
State, and unite their nationalities in two emperors. 

You will see in their conventions they have laid the founda- 
tions to establish all these things. All they lack of establishing 
their power over the people is, that Lincoln has not fully got 
the military power over the North, like Davis has .over the 
South. Now, from what I have shown, you will see the great 
necessity of immediate action on your part to make the move 
more certain. It might be proper, on the part of the legisla - 
tures, to have this pamphlet printed into as many copies as will 
furnish every voter in every county in each State, and also a 
copy to each officer and soldier in each State, call for their 
votes, if they are willing to come under this platform as a 
standard of government that I have explained, which is only 
the principles properly explained in the original Constitution of 
the United States in its purity, and I will venture to say there 
will be more than three-fdUrths, if not all, who will agree to be 
bound by it to support and defend it, North and South, except 
those who want to destroy it. But suppose you fail to adopt 
or act on this plan of a remedy, I know of no other that yo u 
could adopt to escape utter ruin and destruction, and if you do 



168 

not, let me show yoii the'evil that wall come upon you. They 
will create kings over you, and emperors, you will be taxed to 
build imlaces for them to live in, taxed to supply them with a 
suflScient amount of money j^to live in princely royalty and 
grandeur; you will bej^taxed to supply all th^ officers necessary 
to keep up this royalty and grandeur. You will also have your 
sons dragged from you, under the name of conscripts, to pro- 
tect them against any resistance,'^ and the people will be taxed 
to feed and clothe this army. 

All those taxes will be levied not to supply the wants of 
the government, but to supply' the wants of those who have, 
through deceit and flattery, brought you under this destruction 
and ruin, besides all those heavy debts already brought on us 
by those two military chie ftains. They have already claimed, 
in their conventions, that they have the absolute control over 
both the lives, liberties and property of the people, and that 
they had the right to take everything from the people, and they 
are doing it now as fast as they can, all under the pretence of 
protecting the people against one ^another. Now, all the real 
wants of government are not included in the taxes I have men. 
tioned. They would have it in their jsower to build monuments, 
extravagant public works, and all kinds of extravagance. For 
you must recollect that the sovereUjn^ be it a State or a man, 
was to be under no obligation but their own will, so I do not 
wish to make any false representations. It is evident that they 
did not intend for the sovereignty to remain in the legislatures, 
for their declaration was that they would not admit of any 
allegiance to any other authority than that of the State, and 
those to whom the State might transfer that allegiance. So it 
is evident they intended a transfer, which must be to a king and 
emperor. 

Now, under the Constitution, there is neither king nor 
emperor. Neither is there power to tax the people for any- 
thing but the real necessary wants <>f government. They owe 
no allegiance to any except to one another. Now let us see 
what was our situation under the Constitution as a standard of 
government in its purity, if all parties had compUed Avith the 
obligations established under it. We were the happiest and 



169 

securest people in all our rights, liberties and privileges upon 
the face of the globe. We had every right that the human 
family ought to possess. We had a right to work when we 
pleased, and at whatever we thought fit; we had free trade 
with the whole world ; no tax nor duty to pay on any article we 
exported out of our own country ; at home no duty to pay on 
any article passing from one State to another State. The 
written agreement that existed between us, secured all these 
rights and liberties, besides hundreds of others in our own 
government, as well as our rights through commercial treaties 
with other governments, which were secured as well as could be 
done imder those favorable circumstances. We increased in 
wealth and prosperity beyond any people ever known. From a 
small niimber we increased, in less than a hundred years, to 
become a powerful nation of people. Through commercial 
intercourse with the whole world we were put in possession of 
every luxury produced upon earth. We were at peace with all 
nations on the face of the globe, and the interest that all 
nations had in our commerce was calculated to preserve peace 
so long as we acted justly and uprightly with them. Our flag 
was honored in every country and clime ; our citizens were 
treated more like kings than citizens ; our Government was 
called the "Father of Liberty," and so it was, it was a home for 
the distressed or oppressed ; the widow's stay and the orphan's 
protector ; it was kind to the poor, and fed the hungry, not only 
in her own land, but through her commerce, fed thousands in 
other lands. And all the people called her blessed. 

We had increased in wealth and numbers until no two gov- 
ernments on earth combined could have conquered us, and left 
a sufficient number at home to protect themselves. Now, if we 
will continue to exert ourselves, and make every effort to obtain 
an honorable peace, we may yet be restored to our former 
greatness and happiness. 

Now, it will be seen that all the other States that came to 
assist South Carolina, against Lincoln's treasonable proceedings 
against South Carolina, cannot be guilty of treason ; because no 
case had been brought against the proceedings of those who 
claimed a right to secede from the Union. By law, and in the 



170 

eye of the law, every one is considered innocent until they are 
found guilty. Now, Lincoln had no right to decide the case, 
"whatever, and no authority to do any thing, only what was 
delegated by the Constitution, but he was acting according to 
the platform adopted by Mr. Calhoun, to decide for himself, 
choose his own mode and manner of defence, like Mr. Cal- 
houn's j)arty did in their convention. 

Now, a Convention under the Constitution has no power 
given to it to judge any case whatever ; their power is all dele- 
gated, like all other agents appointed or elected by the people. 
And all the power that was delegated to them was, to adopt 
amendments, but no power to establish a single one of them. 
It had no power but to propose amendments, and then it re- 
quired the consent of three-fourths of the States before it 
could be adopted ; so that Lincoln's decision and Calhoun's, 
each are deciding for themselves, choosing their own mode 
and measure of defence stand on the same ground or footing — 
both pretending that they are contending for the rights of the 
Union, when both are claiming the rights of monarchs over the 
people more than any king, prince or potentate in any civilized 
land on earth. 

Lincoln had as much right to decide for himself, and choose 
his own mode and measure of redress, because he was Presi- 
dent, as Calhoun and his party had a right to decide for them- 
selves, and choose their own mode and measure of redress in a 
convention. So they both stand on the same foundation, with- 
out a shadow of right or authority. So that these two parties 
cannot be anything but mobs, and I have always been of the 
opinion that they Avere acting in concert, in order to get the 
people under military power, so that they could force them 
imder a monarchical government, (as Mr. Calhoun said in his 
book on governments.) 

Now, all the people of every State, who are members of the 
Union, have a right to protect the people of the South from the 
robbery of Lincoln, in accordance with the agreement under 
the Constitution, because you will see that this Convention had 
no authority to throw them out ; nor do I consider any of them 
out. The people never gave their consent to go out, and the 
whole of the convention movement was unconstitutional, null 



171 

and void, and Lincoln's is the same. This was as great and ty- 
rannical a* assumption of power, both by Lincoln's party and 
Calhoun's party, as ever existed since the globe was created ; 
and^it is high time that the people should assume the authority 
of their own government, and act in accordance with it, and 
protect each other against those great usurpers, North and 
South. 

But let us stop the shedding of blood — call for a peace con- 
vention, and call for an armistice. Let there be a member from 
every county, elected by the people in every State throughout 
the Union. And let a platform be laid down by wise and good 
men, or by one man, and let the principles be laid down to give 
strict justice and equality to each member of the Union, with- 
out any regard to parties. There can be but two parties, one 
right, and the other wrong. So if we can arrange and establish 
such laws as a standard of government, that wUl protect right 
against wrong, and provide a security for every member of the 
Union. For we are not bound under the Union to protect any 
but those who are members of the Union. If every member 
can be protected in his just rights against wrong, and made se- 
secure in his rights, that is the kind of government, I think, 
wUl, or ought to suit everybody. Such a platform as that I 
have written, or have attempted to write out, and for those 
express purposes. 






^^^/^ 










I".*'' .; 



••V\.' 

















v^^ .-■■ 









■^^ 






,\^ . V I « 










?:^ ''^^ 






G 



' ''^ "^ '^ <- ': ' " A 




"/ 















'"^ '■♦ 



r^ 






















-^ ^■.-./' ^-\.xn\. >-.'%, '"--^ .^^o. .. <: 






"9^ 



